Why are politically minded evangelicals not supporting Tim Scott over Donald Trump?

[RoBo1988]

I get my health insurance through my state, and so far it's been nothing but a boon. Frankly I think we should abolish the for-profit healthcare system entirely, it's ungodly and immoral.

-CryptoLutheran

I'm sure it's great, just like all the free vaccines we got a couple years ago. The government always has the money; wonder why that is?

 

[John Helpher]

Things that the evangelical voters who supported Trump should find very attractive.

If you have to be lured away from Trump, you're probably not gonna choose anything better.

 

[chevyontheriver]

If you have to be lured away from Trump, you're probably not gonna choose anything better.

Ouch.

 

[9Rock9]

I think it's simply that most voters, evangelicals included, are pragmatists first and foremost. We all have a set of values we would like to see our leaders promote, but at the end of the day, some compromises have to be made. You can't get everything you want, so getting at least some concessions is better than getting nothing at all.

The support for Trump could simply be because they see how well he's doing in the primaries, and don't think Scott has a chance. If he were in a close second, then maybe some evangelicals could be persuaded to switch over to Scott.

As an SC native myself, Scott and Haley are both well liked, but the state primary will come down to whether they like them or Trump more.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Serious question; Does Christianity belong in politics more than in, say, science for example?

...Why does politics need Christianity at all? I can do Christianity *ALL BY MYSELF*, without Federal help.

Politics should be based solely on prudential judgements.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Jesus doesn't need assistance from the government.

 

[RoBo1988]

Serious question; Does Christianity belong in politics more than in, say, science for example?

...Why does politics need Christianity at all? I can do Christianity *ALL BY MYSELF*, without Federal help.

Politics should be based solely on prudential judgements.

Colossians 3:1-17
Verse 17 " And whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, `do' all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." (ASV)
Whatever I do, Christ lives within me; so if I'm an accountant, garbage collector (a reminder-tomorrow's trash day), a plumber, a machinist, or (gasp) a legislator, I am to do it to the Glory of God. It would be nice if most did that, but sadly, most don't.

 

[WolfGate]

I think it's simply that most voters, evangelicals included, are pragmatists first and foremost. We all have a set of values we would like to see our leaders promote, but at the end of the day, some compromises have to be made. You can't get everything you want, so getting at least some concessions is better than getting nothing at all.

The support for Trump could simply be because they see how well he's doing in the primaries, and don't think Scott has a chance. If he were in a close second, then maybe some evangelicals could be persuaded to switch over to Scott.

As an SC native myself, Scott and Haley are both well liked, but the state primary will come down to whether they like them or Trump more.

I see your point about voters being pragmatists and getting some values, but I see that applying in the general election but not the primaries. Evangelicals have a chance to throw their support behind someone who shares their culture and biblical worldview and also policy wise is close to Trump. Then, if it isn't enough to put a better option (Scott) as the nominee, they can be pragmatic and vote for Trump. That is what many claimed they were doing in 2016, but now they have a less compromising option and they are choosing to not accept it.

It would be hard to be pragmatic about the general election and choose Trump as Scott consistently leads Biden in polling despite not being that well known. IMO, he (and Haley and many other GOP candidates) stand a better chance of beating Biden than Trump.

 

[WolfGate]

Serious question; Does Christianity belong in politics more than in, say, science for example?

...Why does politics need Christianity at all? I can do Christianity *ALL BY MYSELF*, without Federal help.

Politics should be based solely on prudential judgements.

JMHO, Christians should have a voice in the square of public debate. Societal issues impact Christians daily lives just like those who are not Christian. We also only have a voice, not a divine directive to dictate every issue over others who have a voice. So we as citizens are going to be in politics as we are Christians, but Christianity should not rule the political process.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Serious question; Does Christianity belong in politics more than in, say, science for example?

...Why does politics need Christianity at all? I can do Christianity *ALL BY MYSELF*, without Federal help.

Politics should be based solely on prudential judgements.

That's a very good point.

However, I'd argue that "love thy neighbor" includes how we love our neighbor through our vocation as citizens. In a democracy that means bringing our conscience to the voting booth, regarding the least of these, and our neighbor generally. One could make an argument that, in such a vocation, we should regard others even higher than ourselves; thus our vote ought to put the needs of others--over ourselves--as chief. Because all vocational activity is to be in and of Christ, as we seek to abide by the "royal law of love", which is the chief command we have from God in the context of our relationship toward the world. Our iustitia coram hominibus, our righteousness before human beings.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[9Rock9]

I see your point about voters being pragmatists and getting some values, but I see that applying in the general election but not the primaries. Evangelicals have a chance to throw their support behind someone who shares their culture and biblical worldview and also policy wise is close to Trump. Then, if it isn't enough to put a better option (Scott) as the nominee, they can be pragmatic and vote for Trump. That is what many claimed they were doing in 2016, but now they have a less compromising option and they are choosing to not accept it.

It would be hard to be pragmatic about the general election and choose Trump as Scott consistently leads Biden in polling despite not being that well known. IMO, he (and Haley and many other GOP candidates) stand a better chance of beating Biden than Trump.

I think part of it is that the MAGA faction of the party is trying to remain unified while the anti-Trump side is still split between various candidates. If MAGA defects from Trump, then it means they risk the anti-Trump Republicans reclaiming the party. I think they are waiting for candidates like Christie and Pence to drop out before they split from Trump.

 

[returntosender]

Looking at it objectively, from what I was in the past told by many of my fellow evangelicals and read from evangelical leaders in the media, it should be a very easy decision to place their support behind Tim Scott instead of Trump for 2024. Yet that isn't happening. Why?

Tim Scott, a Christian 'above all other things': How a Ten Commandments fight shaped him

Here's how a 1997 county council fight over the Ten Commandments shaped Tim Scott's political career.

www.usatoday.com

Things that the evangelical voters who supported Trump should find very attractive.

1) Tim Scott is an evangelical like they are, not somebody who has only promised to support them "I see myself first as a biblical leader and not as a Republican or conservative leader," Scott said during a 2020 video conference with students at Bob Jones University, which is known for its conservative cultural and religious positions. "I am first a Christian," he added. "And it is the thing I have chosen to be above all other things."

2) Tim Scott supports many of the policies (religious freedom, pro-life) that Trump supporters claimed drove their Trump support (over the supposed dislike of Trump's immorality and narcissism) to the point that "Democrats have signaled that their plan is to cast Scott, who at times was critical of Trump, as a disciple of his policy pursuits. They called attention to his social views, calling him a "MAGA Republican"."

3) His whole theme of personal responsibility and that we need "more victors and not victims" aligns with the worldview of that group.

4) Tim Scott's demeanor shows love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance.

4) Scott consistently beats Biden in hypothetical general election polls and doesn't have strong negatives in polling, which is a solid foundation to grow his lead over an unpopular incumbent as he gets more exposure.

My current conclusion is that evangelicals have gone tribal and now identify as Trump supporters first and Christ followers second. Sticking it to the Democrats for the way they treated Trump is more important to that group than anything else. They could support a man in Scott who has a long history that shows he looks to our God and Savior; instead they are so far sticking with Trump who Dobson had to try and defend as a "baby Christian" and who years later was unable to answer Sean Hannity's question about how his faith had grown.

The evangelicals have been very open in their sermons concerning their support of trump because of the promises he made for the country. His stand hasn't changed so why should theirs?
But i might add, they speak a lot less of him how. That might not mean they have changed their minds, maybe they're biding their time or....

 

[9Rock9]

Also, the Republican field is crowded, so most candidates are gonna struggle. If an Evangelical doesn't like Trump, they can support Haley or DeSantis instead, both of whom are more recognizable nationally compared to Scott.

 

[Green Sun]

I get health insurance from my employer. The more the government gets involved, the fewer my options are, and my benefits are worse.
In other words; do me a favor, and don't do me any more favors.

I recall my father's healthcare through his employer giving him a deadline to walk on two feet again within a few days time or they'd stop paying for the facility he was getting care at.

I recall us fighting, arguing, trying to get them to change their mind, and they refused.

I recall seeing that company report record profits that year, the same year I buried my dad.

My dad didn't have any other options at his employer, and it's hard to find a new job when you're dealing with a health crisis, you know. And before the government stepped in to force those private companies to do so, those with per-existing conditions were just flat out rejected from coverage.

"I got mine" is a terrible reason to support private, profit-driven healthcare. Profit-driven healthcare produces worse results at a higher price tag for just about everyone, even you.

U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective, 2022: Accelerating Spending, Worsening Outcomes

Health care spending, both per person and as a share of GDP, continues to be far higher in the United States than in other high-income countries. Yet the U.S. is the only country that doesn’t have universal health coverage.

The U.S. has the lowest life expectancy at birth, the highest death rates for avoidable or treatable conditions, the highest maternal and infant mortality, and among the highest suicide rates.

The U.S. has the highest rate of people with multiple chronic conditions and an obesity rate nearly twice the OECD average.

Americans see physicians less often than people in most other countries and have among the lowest rate of practicing physicians and hospital beds per 1,000 population.

 

[Green Sun]

I think part of it is that the MAGA faction of the party is trying to remain unified while the anti-Trump side is still split between various candidates. If MAGA defects from Trump, then it means they risk the anti-Trump Republicans reclaiming the party. I think they are waiting for candidates like Christie and Pence to drop out before they split from Trump.

I don't think "MAGA" exists without Trump. And I think that even the anti-Trump republicans are too afraid to risk angering the MAGA voters (both for fear of losing elections, and the fear for their lives from MAGA extremists) to truly break from Trump.

I think that, until the Republican party has a consistent, multi-election loss streak, forcing the GOP to finally cut off fully from Trump or risk irrelevancy with the typical voter, they'll keep themselves chained at the altar of Trump.

 

[RoBo1988]

"I got mine" is a terrible reason to support private, profit-driven healthcare. Profit-driven healthcare produces worse results at a higher price tag for just about everyone, even you.

Great! I'll just quit my job, and sign up for wonderful public health care!
When everyone is riding the wagon, there's no one left to pull it.

 

[Green Sun]

Great! I'll just quit my job, and sign up for wonderful public health care!
When everyone is riding the wagon, there's no one left to pull it

Is healthcare the only reason that you work? That's what you're implying. I also don't see where you got "and so everyone should stop working" out of my post, but I guess we gotta rail against imaginary "slackers". How dare people without a job get affordabe medical care!

I don't think someone's ability to able to receive the affordable medical care should be tied to having a job or not. Everyone should be able to live without worrying that a single health scare will destroy them financially.

I would recommend reading the Commonwealth Groups writeup at least. I know you probably don't want to, but I'd suggest it. Other countries spend less money than we do on healthcare for better results.

I hope you don't find yourself one day being told by your employer-provided healthcare "Sorry, it's better for our quarterly profit that we don't treat this", like what happened with my dad.

 

[A2SG]

Great! I'll just quit my job, and sign up for wonderful public health care!
When everyone is riding the wagon, there's no one left to pull it.

That's exactly why no one works in the UK. Or Canada. Or Australia. Or France. Or Brazil. Or Germany. Or....

-- A2SG, I could go on.....

 

[Pommer]

Serious question; Does Christianity belong in politics more than in, say, science for example?

...Why does politics need Christianity at all? I can do Christianity *ALL BY MYSELF*, without Federal help.

Politics should be based solely on prudential judgements.

The World and its systems are all “enemy territory” in Christianity, [as this Heathen understands it].
The effort of good, honest Christians to make (whatever) nation that they find themselves to be a citizen of a nation that is to be “closer to what God would want”, sort of misses the whole point of “be in the world but not ‘of the world’.”
And yet, for the most part, Christianity could be a powerful force for what is “best” for everyone.

The “problem” (in America, at least) seems to be Christians getting hung up on “moral issues” that no government should attempt to “control”.
Who canoodles with whom is not the government’s business: the society of a nation should drive the government not the other way around.

 

[RoBo1988]

That's exactly why no one works in the UK. Or Canada. Or Australia. Or France. Or Brazil. Or Germany. Or....

-- A2SG, I could go on.....

Canada?

Opinion: Canada has a doctor shortage. But if governments wanted, we could have a doctor surplus

Provincial governments have for decades tried to lower health care costs by limiting the supply of doctors. That has to end

www.theglobeandmail.com