Christian Nationalism and Demands for "Ethical" Political Leaders

Exploring the paradox of the American Christian Right emphasizing "character" in political leaders while enthusiastically supporting characters like Trump.

In 1998, at the height of the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal, James Dobson wrote an open letter to the American people. Dobson was the founder of Focus on the Family, one of the largest and most influential conservative Christian ministries of the 1980s and 1990s.

Dobson’s words were read and heard by millions of people. He in many ways reflected much of the leadership of the religious right in the United States in the latter part of the 20th century, and played a critical role in shaping the views of those (like me) who were part of conservative evangelical Christianity.

One of Dobson’s key points in this letter, as the realities of what Clinton did and tried to cover up were made clear, was that Clinton was no longer fit to be President of the United States. Clinton’s moral failings in his personal life were evidence that he did not have what it takes to lead this (Christian) nation. As Dobson wrote in his open letter:

As it turns out, character DOES matter. You can’t run a family, let alone a country, without it. How foolish to believe that a person who lacks honesty and moral integrity is qualified to lead a nation and the world! Nevertheless, our people continue to say that the President is doing a good job even if they don’t respect him personally. Those two positions are fundamentally incompatible. In the Book of James the question is posed, “Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring” (James 3:11 NIV). The answer is no.

While a bit of a scriptural stretch at the end of this quote, Dobson is attempting to provide biblical support for denouncing a political leader for personal moral failings, even if some might believe the leader is doing a “good job” elsewhere. Dobson is saying that it’s the character of the leader that counts, not just that they may align with certain policies we support or if this leader is racking up “wins.” If the leader is unethical, it shouldn’t matter if they’re delivering on certain promises like . . . searching for an example here . . . ideal Supreme Court justices or legislation that cuts taxes or whatever.¹

The key, Dobson believed, is that the character of the leader is a reflection of the character of the nation and its people. And the misdeeds and bad examples from our leadership serve to shape the hearts and minds of the citizens of the nation and, in particular, the young and impressionable. He writes later:

I just don’t understand it. Why aren’t parents more concerned about what their children are hearing about the President’s behavior? Are moms and dads not embarrassed by what is occurring? At any given time, 40 percent of the nation’s children list the President of the United States as the person they most admire. What are they learning from Mr. Clinton?² What have we taught our boys about respecting women? What have our little girls learned about men? How can we estimate the impact of this scandal on future generations? How in the world can 7 out of 10 Americans continue to say that nothing matters except a robust economy?

During this same time, former leader of the Christian Coalition Ralph Reed said regarding Clinton, “Character matters, and the American people are hungry for that message. We care about the conduct of our leaders, and we will not rest until we have leaders of good moral character.”

That same year, 1998, the Southern Baptist Convention, which was then home to over 15.5 million members and remains the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, affirmed a “Resolution on Moral Character of Public Officials.” In it they declared, “that moral character matters to God and should matter to all citizens, especially God’s people, when choosing public leaders … we urge all Americans to embrace and act on the conviction that character does count in public office, and to elect those officials and candidates who, although imperfect, demonstrate consistent honesty, moral purity and the highest character.”

Given the current context in which we live, and what we’ve seen out of Dobson, other leaders like him, and the SBC during the Trump era, we can recognize an existing paradox. These same folks, Dobson especially, NEVER applied the same standard to Donald Trump. There have been more flip-flops on their “our leaders must be personally moral” stance than at a surf shop in Sarasota.

Rather, this group pivoted to holding the “right” policy views as the actual true form of moral leadership, not personal character. As Jerry Falwell Jr. famously said, “We’re not electing a pastor in chief,” which resonates with Tony Perkins’ saying Trump deserved a “mulligan” for unethical personal behaviors because he was finally a leader willing to stand up for conservative Christians and “punch the bully.”

And it’s this paradox—how leaders on the Christian Right continually stressed the need for “character” and proper ethics in political leadership during one era but then enthusiastically supported Trump³ in another—that continues to fascinate and exasperate. But social scientists had yet to focus specifically on Americans’ views about ethical leadership . . . until now!

In a newly published paper co-authored with Sam Perry in the journal Review of Religious Research, “Character Matters? Christian Nationalism and Insistence on Ethical Political Leaders,” we show how Christian nationalism helps us make sense of how and why these leaders were able to support Trump and still say they desire ethical leaders for our Christian country.

In the paper we propose that Christian nationalism helps explain the need for consequentialist reasoning that clearly emerged among the leaders of the Christian Right. We’re excited to finally have the data to support this claim.

Here’s what we find. First, Christian nationalism continues to predict Trump support. Second, Christian nationalism is strongly associated with insistence on ethical political leaders. Finally, we show that Christian nationalism also predicts insistence on ethical political leaders, specifically among Trump voters.

How do we measure insistence on “ethical political leadership”? We asked respondents to a national survey two questions. They could indicate their level of agreement from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” We asked them:

• “It is important to hold unethical leaders accountable even if they are on my side.”

• “Unethical leaders must be kept out of office even if it costs my side electoral victories.”

It is important to note both questions include qualifications about demanding ethical leadership even if it costs their own group, which requires a commitment from respondents that goes beyond demanding ethical leadership from out-groups or in the abstract. It can’t just be “ethics for them, but not for us.”

Now let’s look at the findings:

Finding 1: Christian nationalism predicts Trump support (again)

While this is a finding we originally showed in 2018, it has been reproduced time and again for different election cycles, by different researchers, and in different surveys. The red band shows that as respondents more strongly embrace Christian nationalism, their probability of voting for Trump increases.

So, not much surprising here. But it just sets the table, in a sense. Let’s move on . . .

Finding 2: Christian nationalism is strongly associated with insistence on ethical political leaders

Here we show that the relationship between insistence on ethical political leadership and Christian nationalism is curvilinear, meaning that it’s the folks who most strongly reject Christian nationalism and the folks who most strongly embrace it who are most insistent on ethical leadership (that’s why each end is higher on the y-axis than the middle).

This is important in that it isn’t just the religious right or those arguing for a Christian nation who want ethical leadership—those who reject Christian nationalism similarly demand it, even if it costs their own group.

The question remains, however: is Christian nationalism linked to support for Trump and demands for ethical leadership, something we all assumed was true to this point?

Yes. Yes it is.

Finding 3: Christian nationalism predicts insistence on ethical political leaders, specifically among Trump voters

You can see the same curvilinear band for the voters for Donald Trump in red—more Christian nationalism is linked to greater demands for ethical leadership, even among those who support the notoriously and proudly unethical Donald Trump.

We even replicate the above figure for Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in the paper. The higher any of those groups are on the Christian nationalism scale, the more likely they are to demand ethical leaders.

Conclusions

So what does this mean? Well, some might have thought the Christian Right abandoned it’s earlier insistence on ethics in political leadership when it was no longer convenient. Data from PRRI suggested this when in a 2011 poll only 30 percent of white evangelicals agreed elected officials can still perform their public duties in an ethical manner even if they have committed immoral personal acts, while by 2016, 72 percent of white evangelicals now agreed elected officials can still fulfill their duties despite immoral personal acts, a 42-point swing. You can call that the “Clinton to Trump Transformation.”

In the paper we propose a better explanation than an “abandoning insistence on ethics” argument is that Americans characterized by the strongest commitment to religio-political in-groups (like “we are and should be a Christian nation”) can simultaneously demand ethical purity from leadership and in-group members while being blind to the ways they compromise on their own standards. Basically, you adhere so strongly to your in-group that you begin to have a blind spot to where your in-group may be going wrong.

As we write:

These findings help us understand the paradox of Christian Right insistence on ethics in political leadership despite strong support for notoriously unethical political leaders like Donald Trump. If we conceptualize Americans’ responses to questions about Christian nationalism as a reflection of their commitment to religio-political in-groups . . . strong in-group identification both amplifies demands for ethical purity while blinding in-group members to the ways they compromise on their own standards.

And interestingly, these findings showing Christian nationalism reflects more extreme in-group commitment helps us explain how Americans could believe Donald Trump was more “religious” than Joe Biden or Mike Pence, two men widely known for their religious practice and rhetoric.

So this research shows the Religious Right, from leaders like Dobson down to the rank-and-file, haven’t abandoned their commitment to the idea that political leaders must be ethical in order to support Trump. Rather, their commitment to their own religio-political in-group, which demands allegiance to Trump, results in a blindness toward compromises of the in-group.

So whether or not those on the Religious Right recognize the goalposts moved really doesn’t matter.

They have plenty of motivation not to acknowledge it.

1. Totally random example, clearly.

https://religionnews.com/2017/02/01/evangelicals-are-ecstatic-reactions-to-scotus-nominee-neil-gorsuch/

https://www.frc.org/newsroom/family-research-council-praises-the-pro-family-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act#gsc.tab=0

2. Replace “Clinton” with “Trump” and you get the gist of what the research I’m about to share is showing.

3. These same religious leaders have cultivated a particularly fond view of Putin. Just look at Franklin Graham.