How “Morality Voters” Justify Voting for Donald Trump
It seems difficult to explain why evangelical Christians swung their vote toward Donald J. Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election.
A recent survey conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute puts this into perspective. Asking voters if private immoral acts will affect the ethical responsibilities of elected officials, the group that shifted most was the religious.
The biggest shift was found in one specific group: white evangelicals. In 2011, 30 percent of that demographic claimed that a politician acting immorally behind closed doors can still be an upstanding moral leader. In the era of Trump that number has surged to 72 percent. Likewise, white evangelicals that believe religious beliefs are ‘very important’ for potential presidents dropped from 64 to 49 percent.
The potential positive side of this is that they don't seem to backslide once they've given up their moral condemnation: now we can elect a Democrat who is an atheist or has a sex tape history, where that would previously have been impossible. We saw this in 1980, when the Republican candidate had been divorced, which previously was a moral dead end.
It was interesting to read the comments from evangelicals during the primary and compare those comments to what they said after Trump became the standard bearer. Many, perhaps most, found Trump to be repugnant prior to his coronation. Afterwards, not so much.
I simply do not understand this. ???? Direct contrast.
Perhaps read the article as it cites the source for where it's deriving the numbers and what they represent. And yes there is a direct contrast between differing religious groups as well as the nonreligious which can be plotted over time. No surprise but the nonreligious didn't shift much, but those who typically proclaim moral superiority did (a la selling out).
"The Public Religion Research Institute asked a large random sample of Americans a blunt question: “Do you think an elected official who commits an immoral act in their private life can still behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public and professional life?” Over the past five years, Americans have shifted toward a more accommodating stance. In 2011, only 44 percent believed that politicians could be immoral in private and still perform their public duties in an ethical manner. Now, this position commands 61 percent support. It is endorsed by 61 percent of Democrats (up 12 points since 2011) and by 70 percent of Republicans (up a whopping 34 points).
The breakdown along religious lines is instructive. Americans without any religious affiliation haven’t shifted much—63 percent in 2011, 60 percent today. Catholic acceptance of politicians’ personal misconduct has increased from 42 to 58 percent. White mainline Protestant support is up by 22 points, from 38 to 60 percent.
These large shifts are dwarfed, however, by the change among white evangelicals. In 2011, only 30 percent believed that personal immorality was consistent with an ethical performance of official duties. Today, 72 percent of white evangelicals—up an astounding 42 points–believe that the two can go together.
In a related change, fewer white evangelicals now believe that strong religious beliefs are very important for presidential candidates—49 percent today, versus 64 percent just five years ago." (bold and italics done by me).
The question is very odd, matching immoral with unethical. Morals shift over time and differ from community to community, even person to person. Ethics aren't so fluid.
I disagree, +Brian Barth. If you're immoral, chances are you're also unethical. They are two sides of the same coin.