I supported Ted Cruz in 2016, then voted for Trump over Hillary in November. There was no primary opposition to Trump in 2020, and I voted for him over Biden in November. I supported Ron DeSantis in 2023-2024, and it appears that I will vote for Trump yet again in November.
Contrary to the article, this resistance to Trump is not because …
I supported Ted Cruz in 2016, then voted for Trump over Hillary in November. There was no primary opposition to Trump in 2020, and I voted for him over Biden in November. I supported Ron DeSantis in 2023-2024, and it appears that I will vote for Trump yet again in November.
Contrary to the article, this resistance to Trump is not because I have a different habitus than most evangelicals. It is because I recognize, from a lifetime of experience observing and participating in politics, that there is a huge gap between effective campaigning and effective governing. This is a dilemma affecting both major parties and spanning decades, at the very least since the spread of television.
Trump accomplished something important in 2015-2016: Changing the frame, refocusing the political discussion on topics such as immigration and trade and whether they were good for everyone or only for a few. That led to a large bloc of voters identifying with him, as the article says. They became convinced that Trump was the ONLY politician who identified with them, leading to a cultic fanaticism that persists today.
But the politician who connects with you does not necessarily have any governing skills. Trump's fanatics give him credit primarily for two things that are standard-issue GOP Establishment politics: The economic stimulus of the Paul Ryan tax cuts, and the judicial appointments that are straight from the Federalist Society influence. How ironic that his main accomplishments were pushed through by the GOP Establishment that his fanatics ridicule at every opportunity.
As a fanatic myself on the importance of reducing immigration, I follow that issue closely. I can never forget the week when my emails were full of alerts concerning a bad immigration bill winding its way through Congress. I was contacting Representatives and Senators. A reporter asked Trump a question about the bill as he walked outside the White House (I forget where he was going). Trump was startled, asked "They are really proposing that?" etc. He was completely clueless. Anyone connected to immigration reform knew about it, but not Trump. But I am sure he had time to engage in twitter spats that week with CNN reporters and the like.
So, yes, Trump talks about issues like immigration that connect with his voter bloc. Talk even accomplished something: The tough talk discouraged immigrants from trying to come here during the first couple of years of his administration. Eventually, I want actual governance.
Built a wall (started to) and remain in Mexico, clearly aligned with the Pro Life movement, deftly dealt with North Korea and other international figures, called NATO to heal, NO NEW WARS.
Could he have governed better...certainly. Could anyone else (even Cruz) done better? I doubt it. Only perhaps Carson as I believe he was the only other 2016 primary candidate that ran on principals.
I supported Ted Cruz in 2016, then voted for Trump over Hillary in November. There was no primary opposition to Trump in 2020, and I voted for him over Biden in November. I supported Ron DeSantis in 2023-2024, and it appears that I will vote for Trump yet again in November.
Contrary to the article, this resistance to Trump is not because I have a different habitus than most evangelicals. It is because I recognize, from a lifetime of experience observing and participating in politics, that there is a huge gap between effective campaigning and effective governing. This is a dilemma affecting both major parties and spanning decades, at the very least since the spread of television.
Trump accomplished something important in 2015-2016: Changing the frame, refocusing the political discussion on topics such as immigration and trade and whether they were good for everyone or only for a few. That led to a large bloc of voters identifying with him, as the article says. They became convinced that Trump was the ONLY politician who identified with them, leading to a cultic fanaticism that persists today.
But the politician who connects with you does not necessarily have any governing skills. Trump's fanatics give him credit primarily for two things that are standard-issue GOP Establishment politics: The economic stimulus of the Paul Ryan tax cuts, and the judicial appointments that are straight from the Federalist Society influence. How ironic that his main accomplishments were pushed through by the GOP Establishment that his fanatics ridicule at every opportunity.
As a fanatic myself on the importance of reducing immigration, I follow that issue closely. I can never forget the week when my emails were full of alerts concerning a bad immigration bill winding its way through Congress. I was contacting Representatives and Senators. A reporter asked Trump a question about the bill as he walked outside the White House (I forget where he was going). Trump was startled, asked "They are really proposing that?" etc. He was completely clueless. Anyone connected to immigration reform knew about it, but not Trump. But I am sure he had time to engage in twitter spats that week with CNN reporters and the like.
So, yes, Trump talks about issues like immigration that connect with his voter bloc. Talk even accomplished something: The tough talk discouraged immigrants from trying to come here during the first couple of years of his administration. Eventually, I want actual governance.
Built a wall (started to) and remain in Mexico, clearly aligned with the Pro Life movement, deftly dealt with North Korea and other international figures, called NATO to heal, NO NEW WARS.
Could he have governed better...certainly. Could anyone else (even Cruz) done better? I doubt it. Only perhaps Carson as I believe he was the only other 2016 primary candidate that ran on principals.