Why Evangelicals in Louisiana MUST Vote for the Former Grand Wizard of the KKK

DavidDukeDid that title get your attention?

Jake Meador has written a great piece of satire. But like most satire, it is very telling about some of the recent arguments evangelicals in support of the Donald Trump candidacy for President of the United States.

Here is a taste of Meador’s piece at Mere Orthodoxy:

Some of my good Christian friends in the state of Louisiana have told me they cannot vote in good conscience for David Duke in this fall’s senate election. As they consider the Senate field in Louisiana, they look around and dislike all their options so much that they tell me they simply cannot bring themselves to support the lesser evil in this contest and so they will be forced to write in a different third-party candidate or abstain entirely.

At first glance, I can understand their reservations. Duke is, after all, a former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. He’s led an organization with a history of lynching, arson, racial intimidation, and no shortage of other violent crimes. In addition to his long-standing links with the Klan, Duke has also publicly aligned himself with a Holocaust denier and his ex-wife played a major role in the founding of Stormfront, a major white nationalist and neo-Nazi website that at one time had more than 50,000 members.

There is reason to think he may have distributed neo-Nazi literature during the early 1990s, perhaps even including Adolph Hitler’s book Mein Kampf. He has also been charged with inciting riots and tax fraud and in one of the early speeches after announcing his candidacy, he cited concerns about “ethnic cleansing” as being a major motivating factor in his campaign. And, yes, he once compared the holocaust to Affirmative Action. I know. I know.

As I said, I can understand why my evangelical friends would choose not to support Duke. But based on my extensive years studying Christian ethics I disagree. Since Duke has announced his candidacy for the senate race in Louisiana, I think it is a morally good choice to support David Duke.

Now, I know some of you will be wondering how an evangelical like myself could support a self-described white supremacist and neo-Nazi like Duke. How could someone who has previously expressed such concern about the moral qualifications of office holders suddenly turn a blind eye to Duke’s considerable failings? Am I simply sacrificing all of my credibility as a public Christian in order to seize a final dying chance at political power such that I’m willing to even support a charlatan who has so far furnished us with no credible reasons to think he will fulfill his promises to my constituency?

No, the truth is that I have credible reason to believe that Duke is a baby Christian. In fact, a friend of mine who pastors a large church in Houston, which is located quite close to Duke’s home state of Louisiana, has given me his personal assurance that Duke prayed the sinner’s prayer with him recently…

Beyond these basic considerations, a further point must be made: Hillary Clinton is bad. Hillary Clinton is pro-choice. She is opposed to religious liberty. Hillary’s America will be an America that is closed to religious schools and that sees all attempts to legally limit the number of abortions shot down by an activist Supreme Court. Not only that, Hillary will have the opportunity to appoint as many as four different Supreme Court justices.

David Duke will be an invaluable ally on all these issues. We particularly need him in the Senate as the Senate plays a pivotal role in approving Supreme Court nominees made by the president. The latest polls suggest that the Democrats may well take not only the White House this fall, but also the Senate. If that happens, Hillary could easily appoint four Ruth Bader Ginsburg-style liberals to the Supreme Court. She could create a 6-3 or even 7-2 liberal majority on the court that will last for at least one generation and quite probably longer than that. The damage the courts could do during that time cannot even be imagined. By supporting Duke’s run for the Senate, we can increase the number of solid conservatives in the Senate opposing Hillary’s activist judicial appointments.

Louisianans:  Vote for Duke.  It is a moral imperative.  If that is not enough, he holds a “Ph.D” in history from the Interregional Academy of Personnel Management in the Ukraine.  He wrote a dissertation titled “Zionism as a Form of Ethnic Supremacism.”

7 thoughts on “Why Evangelicals in Louisiana MUST Vote for the Former Grand Wizard of the KKK

  1. Per your Twitter feed on libertarians and rights, Murray Rothbard on David Duke, 1992. Why Duke is 10-foot pole territory. I’ve seen this movie before. Pass.

    Click to access right-wing-populism.pdf

    So why wasn’t the Establishment willing to forgive and forget when a right-wing radical like David Duke stopped advocating violence, took off the Klan robes, and started working within the system? If it was OK to be a Commie, or a Weatherman, or whatever in your wild youth, why isn’t it OK to have been a Klansman? Or to put it more precisely, if it was OK for the revered Justice Hugo Black, or for the lion of the Senate, Robert Byrd, to have been a Klansman, why not David Duke?

    The answer is obvious: Black and Byrd became members of the liberal elite, of the Establishment, whereas Duke continued to be a right-wing populist, and therefore anti-Establishment, this time even more dangerous because ‘within the system.” It is fascinating that there was nothing in Duke’s current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleo-libertarians: lower taxes, dismantling the bureaucracy, slashing the welfare system, attacking affirmative action and racial set-asides, calling for equal rights for all Americans, including whites: what’s wrong with any of that?

    And of course the mighty anti-Duke coalition did not choose to oppose Duke on any of these issues. Indeed, even the most leftist of his opponents grudgingly admitted that he had a point. Instead, the Establishment concentrated on the very ‘negative campaigning” that they profess to abhor (especially when directed against them).

    Plus ca change.


  2. This shows why principled moral reasoning and discussion is impossible in the current crisis. Might as well ask me if I’d vote for Hitler and be done with it. Duke and the Klan are as close to Hitler as can possibly be imagined on the American political landscape–terror, rape, lynching, murder. This is sentimentality, waving the bloody shirt of race and the question is a trap; no principle can justify Hitler [or racism], no nuance or moral calculus is even speakable.

    But what’s not a pejorative hypothetical is whether the religious left is willing to have even more of the unborn massacred [and Hillary is on record vs. the Hyde Amendment], accompanied by an open legal hostility to religious freedom, just to preserve a very questionable government health care regime and other questionable social experiments.

    That answer appears to be yes. What is bizarre is that the left seems to have zero moral dilemma atall, no discussion or soul-searching necessary. There are only 4 Democrats endorsed for national office by “Democrats For Life.” Four. The decision to sacrifice the unborn has been made.


    Religious liberty is provably next. This is Grudem’s challenge, and it is valid. It’s the left that needs to re-examine its presumptions and moral reasoning.


  3. Or do you draw your moral line somewhere between Trump and Duke? If so, I would like to know more about that line and your rationale for drawing it where you draw it.

    Wielding the “racist” brush indiscriminately is not an argument, and it is irresponsible to even lightly insinuate that Trump is a Klansman past or present or has any link. It is innuendo, no more or less. Trump poses no threat to black America or of lynching anyone. This ‘humor” piece is “waving the bloody shirt,” as they used to say.

    Yes, there is a line to be drawn. That line was drawn in in 1964, 1965 and 1968. Which is more likely, a return to Jim Crow or the expansion of unrestricted abortion and the infringement of religious liberty? [That should be a rhetorical question, but apparently not.]

    So I put it to you, John: Where is the line for abortion? For religious liberty? That part of Wayne Grudem’s argument is not just blithely waved away, here it is mocked.

    As one fellow put it, we must speak of the serious things seriously. Invoking racism [no matter how slight or inconsequential] to trump all other dilemmas is moral irresponsibility. And don’t tell me this is just about Trump. Many of the same people dogging Trump voted for Obama over the utterly tame Mitt Romney, and look where abortion and religious liberty are now. Grudem:

    But the most likely result of not voting for Trump is that you will be abandoning thousands of unborn babies who will be put to death under Hillary Clinton’s Supreme Court, thousands of Christians who will be excluded from their lifelong occupations…thousands of people who will be killed by an unchecked ISIS, and millions of Jews in Israel who will find themselves alone and surrounded by hostile enemies. And you will be contributing to a permanent loss of the American system of government due to a final victory of unaccountable judicial tyranny.

    [I took out the overtly partisan stuff.] You may disagree, but there is too much on the line here to be mocking and joking about.


  4. Tom, I think you’re slipping. 🙂 Why should it matter if the comparison between Trump and Duke is not perfect? Based on your argument above about the Supreme Court it sounds like Duke would be just fine if he promises to appoint conservative justices. You will still get your ultimate moral result with Duke, right? Or do you draw your moral line somewhere between Trump and Duke? If so, I would like to know more about that line and your rationale for drawing it where you draw it.


  5. Not all that clever, since it rests on the false and slanderous premise that Donald Trump = David Duke.

    And I’m crestfallen that the religious left so sneeringly ignores the Democratic Party’s embrace of abortion on demand and its bald hostility to religious liberty. Hillary will nominate such justices as above, abortion will,/i> grow, and religious liberty will be further infringed upon.


    Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the refusal to hear the case. “If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern,” Alito wrote.

    This isn’t funny.


Comments are closed.