Searching for the Political Messiah

Searching for the Political Messiah October 6, 2015

Some signs would suggest that we’re finally seeing the decline of the Donald Trump candidacy/reality show. If so, Republicans and the evangelical “base” will go on in search of their candidate of choice. And GOP candidates will go on trying to convince us that they are the next Reagan, and the anti-Obama.

Vetting the candidates is good and proper, although it means that vast amounts of money are spent on ads trying to play on the emotions of disengaged voters. Over at First Things, Pete Spiliakos makes an excellent point about the vetting – the advent of the internet, talk radio, and other outlets has hardly diminished the vast institutional/media advantage that liberals have in the presidential contest. One only has to observe the appalling games played over the Planned Parenthood expose videos (they don’t exist! they’ve been doctored! let’s parse Carly Fiorina’s words to find so-called “lies,” and ignore the fact that PP is selling body parts of babies for profit!) to realize the advantages that liberals still have in the media.

United States Department of Defense photo, Author- PHC C.M. Fitzpatrick; Public Domain, Wikimedia Commons

Fox News is supposedly the big “conservative” outlet. But while they employ some excellent news journalists, many of Fox’s most popular shows are given over to the crass and sensationalist aspects of Republican politics, aspects abundantly illustrated by the inane and boorish Donald Trump. His made-for-tv candidacy is based on making rude comments and starting pointless fights. If you ever watched “The Apprentice,” you’ll note the commonalities.

In spite of the liberal lean of most culture-making institutions, Republicans and Democrats alike still yearn for the political messiah who will fix everything if we can just elect him/her. I expect that I don’t need to explain this point with regard to President Obama. Elected on a wave of unparalleled exuberance in 2008, even many liberals have been disappointed with his lack of results and/or perpetuation of the political status quo.

Even if evangelicals coalesce around a candidate (Marco Rubio? Carly Fiorina?) we need to remind ourselves every day until the election: there is no political Messiah. Ronald Reagan wasn’t one (how much progress was made under him on the pro-life issue?), and there’s not one in the current crop of candidates. None of these candidates will “make America great again,” whatever that means.

Evangelicals (and all American voters) need to remember that they’re not looking for a candidate who will fix everything. We’re looking for more modest attributes: someone of good sense, decent moral character, relevant experience, and someone who  is unlikely to do much damage in the White House. Presidents like Nixon have squandered their vast experience because of serious moral problems.

Bill Clinton squandered much of his moderation, brilliance, and relateability because of impulsive personal behavior. While Lincoln did well with little experience, our most recent occupant of the White House has not. Bush ’43 was relateable and had true personal decency, but showed an appalling lack of judgment in foreign affairs and military interventions. Good qualities in some areas don’t make up for even one major deficiency in judgment, character, and experience.

In the end, evangelicals will need to coalesce around a candidate who will not be all they’re looking for. They’ll need to support a candidate who can garner more than just evangelical votes. Politics requires building alliances for the common good – or at least for ensuring the least common damage.

Perhaps the very best person we can support is one who realizes that politics doesn’t help that much. Someone who understands that a thriving American society is marked by strong “mediating institutions,” especially families and congregations. Someone who thinks about how government can encourage these institutions, mostly by getting out of the way. That person won’t be the Messiah, he or she will just have good sense about what government can and can’t do.

[Friends, you can sign up here for my Thomas S. Kidd author newsletter. Each newsletter will update you on what’s happening in my writing and in the world of American religious and political history, and current events. It will contain unique material available only to subscribers, and each will help you keep up with my blog posts, books, and other items from around the web. Your e-mail information will never be shared. Thanks!]

"Who says we are a secular nation? You and atheists? Where did you get that? ..."

Evangelical Silence and Trump: A Reformation ..."
"Personal attack. Once you run out of reason fuel and facts, you engage in personal ..."

Evangelical Silence and Trump: A Reformation ..."
">>>"Read your responses to my comment and see whom is truly the one making 'personal ..."

Evangelical Silence and Trump: A Reformation ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • kierkegaard71

    I can go for the boorish part on Trump, but I am less sure about inane! Ha! My personal opinion is that foreign policy is where Presidents can do the most damage. Trump may have called himself “militaristic”, but from the rhetoric on the campaign trail, I would conclude that he would be less inclined to engage in foreign adventurism than most of the others. For example, Marco Rubio is practically ready to start World War III by confronting Russia over Syria. Carly Fiorina will refuse to talk with Putin from day one. Jeb Bush has no problem with much of anything his brother did in foreign policy. As for me, I would say that Carson or Trump might be among the safer choices if preventing damage is what you are after.

  • RustbeltRick

    I agree to a point. It is naïve to think that any president is going to fundamentally transform society and solve things that have plagued us for decades, but it is also a mistake to underestimate the power of the office. Ideology matters, and ideology is the reason a president vetoes one bill and pushes another. The executive branch of government is, essentially, one person, and that person is remarkably powerful, and I think that’s why we care so much about the presidential elections.

  • Maine_Skeptic

    I appreciate this article, because it’s disturbing to hear otherwise intelligent people say that “what we need is a man who can provide leadership for the country.” Bull. Some leaders have more virtue and ability than others, but “great leaders” are an illusion. We lionize them to fill a need in ourselves, and when we lionize them, we’re myth-making. What we need is for citizens to stop being led by heroic narratives and to start holding all politicians, even the ones we usually agree with, accountable when they twist the facts or flat-out lie in an effort to gin up support for their side. If they knew they were going to be accountable for what they say, they would become better leaders.