I’m uncomfortable with this title, but I trust the white evangelical who wrote it and the ensuing article explaining it. Fred Clark, also known as the Slacktivist, writes from a perspective who cares deeply about his religion and its role in politics. He is also from Southwest Pennsylvania which flipped from blue to red so he should know and understand something about our country’s political divide.
He is also one of my favorite bloggers and I visited his site as soon as I heard about the importance of the white evangelical vote to Donald Trump’s election as America’s 45th President.
I start with his post when contemplating the political divide in this country because the evangelical vote was on of the determining factors in this election. 81% of white evangelicals voted for Donald Trump. That was an increase of 8% from 2012 when Mitt Romney was running for President against Barack Obama.
This is Mr. Clark’s conclusion and I highly recommend reading the entire post for fascinating historical context to the white evangelical vote in the 2016 election.
Yesterday, white evangelicals again voted for white nationalism. They supported a candidate who explicitly and unambiguously made white nationalism the centerpiece and driving passion of his campaign. The fig-leaf for this support was abortion. And once again we are asked to believe — after centuries defending slavery, segregation and Jim Crow — that it was only about abortion, and that the 100-percent correlation between this anti-abortion politics and white nationalist politics is just an unfortunate and unforeseen coincidence.
That’s not believable.
White evangelicalism is white nationalism. That’s how it came to be. That’s what it’s for. If you can’t see that after yesterday, you’re choosing not to see it.
Fred’s point is that white evangelicals voted for white nationalism. Their vote serves the greater goal, not that these people are necessarily nationalists themselves. I think that has to be said explicitly.
But when we elect a President-to-be who calls an Indiana born judge a Mexican (just the first example that pops into my mind) and we have overwhelming historic context, our conversations have to be clear, even if we have to step on some toes to figure out what just happened. Fred Clark can help us understand the context of Trump’s election despite the right’s cheap and ahistorical attempts to muddy the waters.