The U.S. Senators who objected to the Electoral College results were almost all evangelicals

For the record, the following United States Senators objected to the Electoral College vote in Arizona last night:

Ted Cruz (R-TX)

Josh Hawley (R-MO)

Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS)

Roger Marshall (R-KS)

John Kennedy (R-LA)

Tommy Tuberville (R-AL)

They are all Republicans. They are all Trump supporters. But they are also, in one form or another, evangelical Christians. Cruz is a Southern Baptist and a Christian nationalist. Hawley is a member of an Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Cindy Hyde-Smith is a Southern Baptist. Roger Marshall is a “non-denominational Christian” who has the support of the Christian Right Family Research Council, the organization run by court evangelical Tony Perkins. Tommy Tuberville attends a Church of Christ congregation. The former Auburn football coach believes that “God sent us Donald Trump.” John Kennedy is a founding member of North Cross United Methodist Church in Madisonville, Louisiana and is a big Billy Graham fan.

The following Senators objected to the Electoral College vote in Pennsylvania last night:

Josh Hawley (R-MO)

Ted Cruz (R-TX)

Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)

Roger Marshall (R-KS)

Rick Scott (R-FL)

Tommy Tuberville (R-AL)

Cindy Hyde Smith (R-MS)

John Kennedy objected to Arizona, but he did not object to Pennsylvania. Rick Scott and Cynthia Lummis did not object to Arizona, but did object to Pennsylvania.

Lummis is a Lutheran and has not made Christian faith a central part of her political identity. Scott is a founding member of Naples Community Church, an independent evangelical church that “affirms the necessity of the new birth.”

Of course there were many evangelical Senators, including Ben Sasse (R-NE), Tim Scott (R-SC), John Thune (R-SD), and Marco Rubio (R-FL) who did not object to the Electoral College votes. Other evangelical Senators, including Jim Lankford (R-OK), Bill Hagerty (R-TN), and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), originally said that they would oppose the Pennsylvania results, but changed their minds after the insurrectionists broke into the U.S. Capitol.

Marco Rubio prepares for 2024

Today Joe Biden introduced his national security team, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

Florida senator Marco Rubio is not happy with Biden’s picks:

Interesting. I’ll take “strong resumes” and “polite & orderly caretakers” any day of the week. Rubio’s appeal to the “decline” of America and “American greatness,” coupled with his disdain for the Ivy League, is his way of throwing a little red meat to Trump followers GOP voters.

As for the reference to “Ivy League schools”:

Donald Trump: University of Pennsylvania undegraduate

Mike Pompeo (Trump’s Secretary of State): Harvard Law

Steve Mnuchin (Trump’s Secretary of the Treasury): Yale undergraduate

Bill Barr (Trump’s Attorney General): Columbia undergraduate

Wilbur Ross (Trump’s Secretary of Commerce): Yale undergraduate; Harvard MBA

Alex Azar (Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services: Dartmouth undergraduate; Yale Law School

Ben Carson (Trump’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development): Yale undergraduate

Elaine Chao (Trump’s Secretary of Transportation): Harvard MBA

Senate Intelligence Committee Unanimously Concludes that Russia Helped Trump Win in 2016

trump putin

Here is Ellen Makashina at The Washington Post:

The Senate Intelligence Committee has unanimously endorsed the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia conducted a sweeping and unprecedented campaign to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

The heavily-redacted report, based on a three-year investigation, builds on a committee finding nearly two years ago that the January 2017 intelligence community assessment (ICA) on Russia was sound. The spy agencies also found that Russia sought to shake faith in American democracy, denigrate then-candidate Hillary Clinton and boost her rival Donald Trump.

Read the rest here.

It is worth noting that the Senate Intelligence Committee includes Republican Senators James Risch (ID), Marco Rubio (FL), Susan Collins (ME), Roy Blunt (MO), Tom Cotton (AR), John Cornyn (TX), Ben Sasse (NE), and Richard Burr (Chairman-NC).

No tweets yet from Trump.

Would the Founders Have Recognized GOP Arguments Against Trump’s Removal?

Impeachment Image

As we enter the 2020 election season I have been trying to do more writing for local and regional outlets here in Pennsylvania. This morning I have an op-ed on the impeachment trial at LNP/Lancaster On-Line (formerly Intelligencer Journal-Lancaster New Era).  Here is a taste:

Other Republican senators, including Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, and Pennsylvania’s own Pat Toomey, argued that Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian president was “inappropriate,” but did not rise to the level of impeachment.

This last group of senators justified their acquittal votes in two ways.

First, some of them argued that the Founding Fathers would have opposed a partisan impeachment. (No House Republicans supported impeachment.)

This is not true.

In Federalist Paper No. 65, Alexander Hamilton, one of the most prolific defenders of the Constitution during the ratification debates of 1787-1788, predicted that impeachments would always be political. As a result, the Senate should always proceed with caution, prudence and wisdom.

Moreover, the framers of the Constitution would never have referred to an impeachment trial as “bipartisan,” since at the time of its writing there were no political parties in the United States.

The second way that this cohort of Republican senators justified their acquittal vote was by claiming that “the people” should decide whether Trump should be removed from office and this should be done when they cast their ballots during the November presidential election.

The Founding Fathers would not have recognized such an argument.

Read the entire piece here.

Presidential Censure in Historical Context


Democrats in the Senate believe that Trump should be removed from office.  They will vote along these lines tomorrow.  But they only have 47 votes.  This is well below the 67 votes needed to remove the president from office.  In all likelihood, the Senate will acquit Trump.

But several GOP Senators have noted that Donald Trump acted inappropriately when he asked the Ukrainian president to investigate Joe Biden.  Marco Rubio even suggested that when Trump withheld American aid to Ukraine until he got an investigation into his political opponent the president was committing an impeachable offense.

While some Senators will defend the president at all costs, it seems that others–Lamar Alexander, Rubio, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Mitt Romney–may want to send a message of rebuke to the president for his corrupt behavior. A censure might be an appropriate way to do this.

I don’t think Joe Manchin will get many Democrats to support a presidential censure.  Most Democrats want Trump out of office. Censure will look like a compromise.  But what if the Republicans pushed for censure?  If they really think that Trump committed unethical or impeachable offenses, perhaps they would want to remind the president that his call to Ukraine was not “perfect.” By calling for a censure of Trump, Manchin appears to be calling their bluff.

If the Senate did pass a censure resolution against Trump it would not be the first time this has happened in American history.  As historian Mark Cheathem reminds us, the Senate censured Andrew Jackson in 1834.  Here is a taste of his post at his blog Jacksonian America:

In 1834, the Senate passed a censure resolution against President Andrew Jackson. The decision to rebuke Jackson stemmed from his actions during the Bank War. Suspicious of the 2nd Bank of the U.S., Old Hickory had waged a battle against the financial institution since his first term. In 1832, he vetoed a congressional bill that would have granted the Bank a new contract four years earlier than expected. The following year, in an attempt to permanently weaken the Bank, Jackson ordered Secretary of the Treasury William J. Duane to remove the government’s deposits. When he refused, the president fired Duane. Jackson replaced him with Roger B. Taney, who implemented the removal policy. Bank president Nicholas Biddle responded by instigating a recession. “This worthy President thinks that because he has scalped Indians and imprisoned Judges, he is to have his way with the Bank,” Biddle said. “He is mistaken.”

Jackson’s opponents, led by Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky, also took action. When Jackson refused to give the Senate a document on the removal of government deposits that he had submitted to his cabinet, Clay introduced censure resolutions against both Jackson and Taney. “We are in the midst of a revolution, hitherto bloodless, but rapidly tending toward a total change of the pure republican character of the government, and to the concentration of all power in the hands of one man,” Clay said in a speech on the Senate floor. He compared Jackson to a tyrant and warned his fellow senators that if they did not stand up to him, then the nation would collapse. “We shall die—ignobly die! base, mean and abject slaves— the scorn and contempt of mankind—unpitied, unwept, unmourned!” he concluded dramatically. In a decidedly partisan vote, in March 1834, the Senate passed censure resolutions against both Jackson and Taney. Senators also rejected Taney’s recess appointment as Treasury secretary.

Read the entire piece here.

Making Sense of Marco Rubio’s Statement on Impeachment and Removal

Rubio debate

Here is Rubio’s statement:

Voting to find the President guilty would not just be a condemnation of his action. If I vote guilty, I will be voting to remove a President from office for the first time in the 243-year history of our Republic.

When they decided to include impeachment in the Constitution, the Framers understood how disruptive and traumatic it would be. As Alexander Hamilton warned, impeachment will “agitate the passions of the whole community.”

This is why they decided to require the support of two thirds of the Senate to remove a President — we serve as a guardrail against partisan impeachment and against removal of a President without broad public support.

Leaders in both parties previously recognized that impeachment must be bipartisan and must enjoy broad public support. In fact, as recently as March of last year, Manager Adam Schiff (D-CA) said there would be “little to be gained by putting the country through” the “wrenching experience” of a partisan impeachment.

And yet, only a few months later, a partisan impeachment is exactly what the House produced.

This meant two Articles of Impeachment whose true purpose was not to protect the nation but rather to, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, stain the President’s record because “he has been impeached forever” and “they can never erase that.”

It now falls upon this Senate to take up what the House produced and faithfully execute our duties under the Constitution of the United States.

Why does impeachment exist?

As Manager Jerry Nadler (D-NY) reminded us Wednesday night, removal is not a punishment for a crime. Nor is removal supposed to be a way to hold Presidents accountable; that is what elections are for.

The sole purpose of this extraordinary power to remove the one person entrusted with all of the powers of an entire branch of government is to provide a last-resort remedy to protect the country. That is why Hamilton wrote that in these trials our decisions should be pursuing “the public good.”

That is why six weeks ago I announced that, for me, the question would not just be whether the President’s actions were wrong, but ultimately whether what he did was removable.

The two are not the same. Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office.

To answer this question, the first step was to ask whether it would serve the public good to remove the President, even if I assumed the President did everything the House alleges.

It was not difficult to answer that question on the charge of “Obstruction of Congress.” The President availed himself of legal defenses and constitutional privileges on the advice of his legal counsel. That is not an impeachable offense, much less a removable one.

Negotiations with Congress and enforcement in the courts, not impeachment, should be the front-line recourse when Congress and the President disagree on the separation of powers. But here, the House failed to go to court because, as Manager Schiff admitted, they did not want to go through a yearlong exercise to get the information they wanted. Ironically, they now demand that the Senate go through this very long exercise they themselves decided to avoid.

On the first Article of Impeachment, I reject the argument that “Abuse of Power” can never constitute grounds for removal unless a crime or a crime-like action is alleged.

However, for purposes of answering my threshold question I assumed what is alleged is true. And then I sought to answer the question of whether under these assumptions it would be in the interest of the nation to remove the President.

Determining which outcome is in the best interests requires a political judgment — one that takes into account both the severity of the wrongdoing alleged but also the impact removal would have on the nation.

I disagree with the House Managers’ argument that, if we find the allegations they have made are true, failing to remove the President leaves us with no remedy to constrain this or future Presidents. Congress and the courts have multiple ways by which to constrain the power of the executive. And ultimately, voters themselves can hold the President accountable in an election, including the one just nine months from now.

I also considered removal in the context of the bitter divisions and deep polarization our country currently faces. The removal of the President — especially one based on a narrowly voted impeachment, supported by one political party and opposed by another, and without broad public support — would, as Manager Nadler warned over two decades ago, “produce divisiveness and bitterness” that will threaten our nation for decades.

Can anyone doubt that at least half of the country would view his removal as illegitimate — as nothing short of a coup d’état? It is difficult to conceive of any scheme Putin could undertake that would undermine confidence in our democracy more than removal would.

I also reject the argument that unless we call new witnesses this is not a fair trial. They cannot argue that fairness demands we seek witnesses they did little to pursue.

Nevertheless, new witnesses that would testify to the truth of the allegations are not needed for my threshold analysis, which already assumed that all the allegations made are true.

This high bar I have set is not new for me. In 2014, I rejected calls to pursue impeachment of President Obama, noting that he “has two years left in his term,” and, instead of pursuing impeachment, we should use existing tools at our disposal to “limit the amount of damage he’s doing to our economy and our national security.”

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the President Pro Tempore Emeritus, once warned, “[A] partisan impeachment cannot command the respect of the American people. It is no more valid than a stolen election.”

His words are more true today than when he said them two decades ago. We should heed his advice. I will not vote to remove the President because doing so would inflict extraordinary and potentially irreparable damage to our already divided nation.

There is a lot we can say about this statement, but two things strike me.

First, Rubio rejects Alan Dershowitz’s argument that the Senate can only remove the president if he commits a crime.

Second, Rubio’s argument seems to reflect the words of presidential historian Jeffrey Engel.  In my interview with Engel on Episode 61 of The Way of Improvement Leads Home Podcast he said:

Because Senators can use any standard of evidence that they want, any standard of burden of proof that they want, and any piece of information that they want (including from their own experience), their job is to determine whether or not the nation will be best served by having the president continue in office or not. It’s to use the evidence that has been accumulated of a “high crime” not necessarily to decide whether or not a crime has been committed, but whether a president is likely to continue to do so in the future having demonstrated a flaw in their character, if you will, that makes them dangerous to the American people. 

Consequently, you could have Senators who believe in their hearts that Donald Trump committed every single act that the House Managers say he did, and if you still believe the nation is better off with him as the president than not, you have an obligation to vote to retain him in office.

By the same token, you could decide that Donald Trump is innocent of the crimes that he has been accused of, the specific crimes he has been accused of, the specific deeds he has been accused of, and decide that he has demonstrated nonetheless a proclivity for putting himself above the needs of the nation, so therefore he should be removed from office. This is entirely subjective and intentionally so because there is no court of appeal.  There is no one who will ever be able to make a Senator change their mind if they don’t want to, or a Senator change their vote if they don’t want to, and they can’t change their vote once it’s submitted. A Senator never has to tell you why he or she voted for or against a presidential impeachment. Now most of them love microphones, so of course they will, but ultimately if you have a court–not a jury, but a court–that is able to make a decision that is without appeal and never has to justify it appeal what that really tells us is people can choose to do what they think is best, and what they think is best may be a political calculation, it may be a moral calculation, it may be a civic calculation, we’ll simply never know.

Which ultimately is why I think Donald Trump is going to be acquitted in this trial because Senators on his side, at least one-third of them, could look themselves in the mirror and say “I like the way the country is going.  I think this man committed a few crimes, but who hasn’t…and I think the country is better off with him in place.” And they can genuinely and justifiably say that to themselves in order to make their vote for acquittal.

Like it or not, Rubio believes that keeping Trump in power is what is best for the country.  Case closed.

The *Believe Me* Book Tour is Headed to the Senate Building


On Wednesday morning, October 10, I will be on Capitol Hill (Dirksen Senate building) to speak to about 100 evangelical leaders gathered for the National Association of Evangelicals’ annual “Washington Briefing.”

The NAE leadership has asked me to talk about Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump.  The event is not open to the public, but I can announce that I will be sharing the day with Rep. Carlos Curbelo, Mark Green, Nathan Gonzalez, Shirley Hoogstra, Ali Noorani, Sen. James Lankford, Brian Walsh, Barbara Williams-Skinner, Sen. Marco Rubio, Stephanie Summers, and Os Guinness.

Stay tuned.

Has Marco Rubio Changed His Mind About Philosophers?

Some of you may recall that Marco Rubio once had some pretty harsh things to say about philosophy and philosophers.  Has he changed his mind?

Nice Work Rex Tillerson


I have been keeping an eye this morning on the Rex Tillerson congressional hearings.  It has been interesting to say the least.  Tillerson, who is Trump’s nominee for Secretary fo State, seems a bit out of his league.  It is clear that he has a lot to learn about how diplomacy works.  But I was pleased with one answer that he gave amidst the barrage of questions he is facing today.

Just a few minutes ago Tillerson told Florida Senator Marco Rubio that a Secretary of State must understand the culture and history of a country where a diplomatic issue may arise.  It was a great comment and certainly one that should bring a smile to the face of any historian.

This exchange was especially interesting in light of Marco Rubio’s disparagement of the humanities when he was on the campaign trail last year.  Here is the infamous “welders-philosophers” comment:

One Way In Which Trump is the New Reagan

Trump and Reagan

Paul Campos says that Donald Trump is the “Reagan Revolution on steroids.”

Jeet Heer compares Trump supporters to Reagan Democrats

Others feel that Trump’s nomination is a rejection of Reagan

Geoff Colvin thinks that Trump has turned his back on Reagan

Rod Dreher calls Trump a “Reaganslayer.”

And these are just some of the Reagan-Trump comparisons that were made THIS WEEK.

I would suggest that there is another way Trump may be the next Reagan.  It hit me today when I listened to Marco Rubio talk to Jake Tapper on CNN.  Rubio says he will support the “Republican nominee” (he did not mention Trump by name) but was clearly not happy about it.  It was obvious that he had his future in mind and was hedging his bets.

As Gloria Borger just said, “If Trump wins, the other GOP candidates do not want to be blamed for not supporting him enough, but if Trump loses the other GOP candidates want to rise up from the ashes.”

For the past twenty-five years, conservative GOP presidential candidates have claimed the mantle of Reagan with a fierce sense of loyalty and nostalgia.  For the next twenty-five years, GOP candidates will be judged–for good or for bad–in light of where they stood on the Trump candidacy in 2016.

In 2020 or 2024 (and beyond) presidential candidates will be talking a lot more about Trump than Reagan.

Ted Cruz’s Religious Liberty Advisory Committee

Cruz Pastor in Chief

Marco Rubio was the first GOP candidate to put together a religious liberty advisory council.  Ted Cruz has followed suit.  Cruz’s committee was formed in February and it has just released its recommendations today. (I don’t seem to remember Rubio’s committee issuing any recommendations).

Here is the press release:

HOUSTON, Texas – Presidential Candidate Ted Cruz today received initial recommendations from his Religious Liberty Advisory Council, formed last month to advise his campaign and future administration on policies to defend religious liberty domestically and internationally.
“During this Holy Week, as Christians prepare to celebrate spiritual freedom in Christ, we remember also that religious liberty is the first American freedom,” said Cruz. “I thank this learned and committed group of leaders for their wise recommendations, and as president I will be proud to work with them to protect our religious liberty. Defending religious liberty has been a lifelong passion, and I’ve been blessed to help win national victories, preserving the Texas Ten Commandments monument, the words ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial.”
The recommendations comprise 15 initial actions, both legislative and executive, to emphasize and bolster the freedom of religion in the United States. Included are the following proposals:

  • Issue an executive order preventing the federal government from discriminating against Americans who believe that marriage is a sacrament between one man and one woman.
  • Reinstate thorough and protective conscience rights protections in federal healthcare programs.
  • Direct the Department of Health and Human Services to exempt all employers who object for moral and religious reasons from any contraception mandate.
  • Update and revise military regulations to reflect a robust constitutional understanding of the first amendment rights of military personnel, particularly chaplains.
  • Pass the First Amendment Defense Act “to prevent discriminatory treatment of any person on the basis of views held with respect to marriage.”
  • Direct the IRS to publicly clarify the generous rights of non-profits and religious leaders to engage in political speech without compromising their tax-exempt status.
  • Rescind executive orders which limit the government from partnering with faith-based non-profit organizations.
  • Order the Department of Education to issue guidelines which accurately address the rights of students, teachers, and other school personnel to live out their faith in a school setting.

Here are the members of the committee:

Chair – Tony Perkins
President, Family Research Council

Ryan Anderson, Ph.D.
William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow, Heritage Foundation

Dr. Tony Beam
Vice President for Student Services and Christian Worldview, North Greenville University

David Benham, entrepreneur

Jason Benham, entrepreneur

Ambassador Ken Blackwell
Former US Ambassador to the UN for Human Rights

Teresa S. Collett
Professor, University of St. Thomas

Jim Garlow, Ph.D.
Pastor, Skyline Church, San Diego, CA

Dr. Mark Harris
Pastor, First Baptist Church, Charlotte, NC

Pastor Jack Hibbs
Calvary Chapel Chino Hills, CA

Bishop Harry Jackson
Senior Pastor, Hope Christian Church, Bishop, International Communion of Evangelical Churches

Richard Lee, Ph.D.
President, There’s Hope America

Paige Patterson, Ph.D
President, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Everett Piper, Ph.D.
President, Oklahoma Wesleyan University

Jay Richards, Ph.D.
Assistant Research Professor, School of Business & Economics, The Catholic University of America

Dr. Steve Riggle
Senior Pastor, Grace Community Church

Reverend Samuel Rodriguez, Ph.D.
President, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference

Kelly Shackelford
President and CEO, First Liberty Institute

Carol Swain, Ph.D.
Professor of Political Science and Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University

A few thoughts:

As expected, and as I have argued this before, Cruz’s committee understands religious liberty in a very limited way.  For example, there is nothing here defending the right of Muslims to practice their faith freely without government interference.  This seems to be a very pressing religious liberty issue in the United States right now. (As far as I can tell, all the members of the council are Protestant or Catholic). Why not address it? If one reads between the lines, the board’s recommendations are related almost entirely to religious liberty issues that conservative Christians are facing.

Don’t get me wrong, I think that Christians today do have some serious religious liberty beefs–especially as it relates to Obamacare and marriage.  But Cruz and his committee are going to have to convince me that they see “religious liberty” as anything more than code for the defense of their own beliefs.

The differences between Cruz’s religious advisory committee and Rubio’s religious advisory committee are worth noting.  Cruz has filled his committee with Christian nationalists and culture warriors.  Rubio reached out to Christian intellectuals, some of whom had more nuanced views om these religious liberty issues.  (Only Samuel Rodriguez was on both committees).

I am sure I will return to this issue soon.  Stay tuned.

A Rubio Recap


Marco Rubio is out of the race.  Over the last several months I have tried to make sense of his campaign.  Here are some of my efforts:

Do GOP Candidates Want Religious Freedom or the Closing of Mosques.  They Can’t Have Both

Marco Rubio’s New Religious Advisers

Rubio’s Appeal to Iowa Evangelicals

GOP Candidates and Their Evangelical Constituencies

When Faith Meets Presidential Politics

Where’ Rubio Went Wrong on Faith and Politics

Evangelicals in Iowa Last Night

Borowitz: Christie Drops Out of the Race So He Can Criticize Rubio Full Time

Image of the Day

Evangelicals are the Prize in South Carolina

The Culture Warriors and Suburban Evangelical Moderates Battle for Second Place in South Carolina

Marco Rubio is Praying the GOP Primary Season Ends This Way

The Tragedy of Marco Rubio

Is Marco Rubio reaping the whirlwind tonight?

The Cleveland Quagmire


This the most succinct and clear explanation of the various scenarios that could play out in the GOP between now and the July convention in Cleveland.  Thanks to Benjamin Ginsburg at Politico for writing it and Brian Franklin of SMU for bringing the piece to my attention:

A taste:

Trump can put all the contested convention talk to rest by securing a majority of delegates before July, and winning Ohio and Florida would go a long way to achieving that. If he doesn’t win both, the talk will continue.

While Trump is the frontrunner, he has won only about 44 percent of the delegates awarded in states that have voted so far. By comparison, Mitt Romney had won 56 percent of the delegates at this point in the 2012 primary; he became the presumptive GOP nominee in mid-April and secured a majority of delegates in late May. If Trump maintains his current rate of 44 percent, he will go into Cleveland with just 1,088 of the 2,472 total delegates—149 short of the 1,237 needed for a majority.

Trump suggested in Thursday night’s debate that the leading candidate, even one shy of a majority, should automatically receive the nomination. But to allow a candidate to be declared the nominee with only a plurality of delegates would require the unprecedented amendment of the existing rules, a feat of rules wizardry as transformative as denying a candidate with a majority the nomination.

Rather than a wholesale rewriting of the rules, the more likely scenario is that if Trump goes into the convention without a majority, he will need to convince enough of the few unbound delegates there to support him. (The unbound delegates consists of those from five states that decided not to hold statewide votes, as well as 54 from Pennsylvania who were directly elected without declaring a presidential preference.) That approach is consistent with the existing rules—but it won’t be easy. In fact, it could lead to convention mayhem.

President Gerald Ford, who went into the 1976 convention without a majority, had to do this to defeat Ronald Reagan. But Trump would be in a tougher spot: In the first presidential roll call vote at the convention, a rule in effect for the first time in 2016 automatically binds more than 90 percent of delegates to specific candidates based on those delegates’ statewide votes. That leaves only a very small pool of delegates that Trump could win over in order to reach a majority on the first ballot: 166 delegates who are already unbound, plus an unknown number whose state laws will unbind them if their candidate drops out by the time of the convention. (There are currently 12 of these delegates, but, importantly, that number will increase if one of the current candidates drops out. For example, should Marco Rubio drop out without winning any additional delegates, 152 delegates would be added to the unbound pool, nearly doubling the number available to Trump’s powers of persuasion to gain a first-ballot majority.)

As things stand now, however, Trump would need to win over a dauntingly high portion of the 166 unbound delegates—nearly 90 percent—in order to get the 149 delegates he would need to reach an overall majority. And many of these unbound delegates are likely to be supporters of candidates Trump has defeated, and could have a less-than-kind view of him.

Read the entire piece here.

Another Perspective on Evangelicals and Presidential Politics

RubioPaul Matzko, a graduate student in American religious history at Penn State, has an extensive essay at his blog analyzing the role of evangelicals in the GOP presidential primaries and caucuses.

Matzko joins the chorus of those who have suggested that Trump appeals to evangelicals who do not regularly attend church. (Even if you don’t read the entire article, his maps and graphs are worth checking out).

Matzko also discusses the role that evangelical intellectuals have played in the Rubio campaign, with a particular focus on Baylor historian Thomas Kidd.

Here is a taste:

A few months after Barton signed on to Cruz’s Super PAC, Kidd joined a pro-Rubio religious liberty advisory board along with megachurch pastor Rick Warren, theologian Wayne Grudem, and a bevy of other evangelical heavyweights. In his explanation for signing on, Kidd referred to Barton’s support for Ted Cruz. Kidd had helped discredit Barton’s historical work and now he sought to minimize his influence with evangelical Republican voters. While the position seems mostly honorary, Kidd has since published several blog posts criticizing the Cruz campaign for its faulty use of history in the service of Christian nationalism.

It’s a remarkable moment. In the past evangelical intellectuals mostly stayed on the sidelines of intramural Republican politics. I can’t imagine Mark Noll, George Marsden, Nathan Hatch, Grant Wacker, or the previous generation of evangelical academics getting involved in partisan politics quite like this. They certainly took a few shots at a prior generation of Christian nationalists, but not in the formal, political arena. And their ideas did not penetrate very deeply into most church pews. Stop by an evangelical church book store today and you’re much more likely to find The Light and the Glory than you are The Search for Christian America. Up until now, the amateur evangelical historians have roundly beaten the professionals at their own game, but Kidd and other evangelical academics have been getting more play among evangelical clergy and laity than has previously been true. While it’s much too early to declare an end to the “scandal of the evangelical mind,” these are positive developments.

Russell Moore, the head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said of the three leading candidates, “I would say that Ted Cruz is leading in the ‘Jerry Falwell’ wing, Marco Rubio is leading the ‘Billy Graham’ wing, and Trump is leading the ‘Jimmy Swaggart’ wing.” I don’t think this is a particularly useful taxonomy because 1) you’d think that Cruz, with his Pentecostal background and the backing of several prominent Pentecostal preachers, would be best qualified for the Swaggart nod and 2) Graham’s legacy is so widely embraced by evangelicals that the comparison with Rubio is mostly meaningless. Moore likes Rubio the best so he compared him to the historical doppelganger he admires the most. That said, I think Moore is right to try and put a finger on some substantive differences between the candidates and their supporters.

There’s a better historical comparison to be made between Cruz/Barton and Rubio/Kidd, but you have to go back several centuries. In short, Thomas Kidd’s view of evangelicalism hearkens back to the First Great Awakening, while David Barton is the heir of the Second Great Awakening. These two historians are promoting authentic but contradictory evangelical visions for engagement in the public square. And the tension between them says something about present day disagreements over the future of American evangelicalism.

Read the entire piece here.

Who Are the Evangelicals?

Trump evangelical

Everyone (including me!) is trying to make sense of the so-called “evangelicals” who are supporting Donald Trump.  Even The New York Times is curious about this.  They have gathered four evangelical writers to discuss the meaning of the term “evangelical” and how it has been used in this primary season.

For example, Gabriel Salguero, the President and founder of the National Latino Evangelical Coalition, begins his piece this way: “The term evangelical should not be reduced to a political category.” Salguero argues that “evangelical” is a theological category–something akin to the so-called Bebbington Quadrilateral.

Here is a taste:

But while the evangelical vote is not uniform, there are three strong theological tenets that broadly define what evangelicals — across racial, ethnic and political lines — believe: We have a high view of the authority of Scripture, we value sharing our faith (and building it within the community), and believe strongly in salvation through Jesus Christ alone. Our unity is around theological concomitants, not political priorities.

As I have argued before, there seems to be a slight distinction between evangelical voters and “values voters.”  On one level, nearly all evangelicals in the GOP are values voters.  In this election cycle they want voters who are pro-life, support traditional marriage, and defend the right of evangelicals to uphold these views without government interference (They call this “religious liberty”). If any of the GOP candidates were to reverse their positions on any of these issues, I think it is fair to say that they would not garner much evangelical support.

Evangelicals who think these values are non-negotiable make up a large subset of the Republican Party.  But within that subset, evangelical voters might prioritize different things.

Some evangelicals support Trump because of his business savvy, his anti-immigration and anti-Muslim positions, his economic plan (is there one?), or his tough talk on foreign policy.

Other evangelicals support Ted Cruz because the Texas Senator believes in limited government, defends the Constitution, is pro-Israel, or gives high priority in his stump speech to the replacement of Antonin Scalia.

More moderate evangelicals support John Kasich because they like his positive campaign and his compassionate conservatism informed by his Christian faith.

Some evangelicals might like Rubio because he is willing to stand up to Donald Trump.

I think the media is just starting to make sense of these differences among evangelicals. Some members of the media may be starting to realize that the paradigm they have used to understand evangelical voting habits is outdated.

When Jimmy Carter ran for POTUS in 1976 and told the nation that he was a “born-again Christian,” journalists had no idea what that meant.  When Newsweek declared that 1976 was “The Year of the Evangelical,” the magazine almost seemed to suggest that it had uncovered some strange creature from another planet.  And then Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority came along and turned conservative evangelicals into one or two issue- voters (abortion always being one of those issues).

Until this year, members of the media and political pundits who know a lot about politics but little about religion, have found this old narrative useful.  But with the arrival of Trump as a candidate who has managed to attract large numbers of “evangelical” voters, this narrative has become much more complicated.

Pundits and experts are no longer thinking about evangelicals as a monolithic voting bloc. They are now trying to dig deeper, analyzing evangelicals in terms of church attendance (or non-church attendance), class, and even race.  (I see the phrase “white evangelical” used in this election cycle more than I have in the past).

Stay tuned.  I am not done with this New York Times forum.

Is Marco Rubio Reaping the Whirlwind Tonight?

RubioLast week I wrote about the “tragedy” of Marco Rubio.

Here is a taste:

Rubio’s raw ambition has been on display during the last week.  He is desperate.  He is willing to do anything to stop Donald Trump, even if it means getting down in the mud with the GOP front-runner.

It wasn’t too long ago that Rubio was in Iowa and South Carolina trying to paint himself as the evangelical alternative to Trump and Ted Cruz.  What happened to this apparently Christian candidate?

This kind of eye-for-eye campaigning is embarrassing for the GOP.  But it is especially problematic for someone who goes out on the campaign trail and names the name of Jesus Christ.

I imagine that Rubio still thinks he is a Christian candidate.  In a world in which “evangelical” is defined by one’s position on abortion, marriage, and religious liberty for Christians, Rubio remains faithful.  As long as he tows the line on these issues, no matter how he behaves, he can claim the Christian mantle.  On this front, he is no better than Trump.

I know I was rough on Rubio, but as I watch the “Super Saturday” election results tonight it appears that many evangelicals were indeed turned-off by Rubio’s decision to get in the gutter with Trump.

As I write this, it looks like Rubio will finish a distant third in Kansas. He is currently in fourth place in Maine and may finish fourth in Kentucky as well.  His only hope is Florida, but Trump currently has a large lead in the polls.

It may be over.

Post-Super Tuesday Thoughts: Little Has Changed

Last night both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump moved closer to winning the nomination of their respective parties. They both racked-up large numbers of delegates.

But for those of us who have been following this election closely, it will feel like little has changed when we wake up on Wednesday morning.

Trump will continue to hold large rallies and say controversial things about Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and immigrants.  Last night he compared Marco Rubio’s attacks on him to the comedy of Don Rickles.  Reports are surfacing that Sheckey Green and Buddy Hackett (despite the fact that he died in 2003) are offended by this comparison.

Ivanka will have her baby and Donald will figure out some way to use the birth of his grandchild to endear himself to voters.

Chris Christie, who is now playing Ed McMahon to Trump’s Johnny Carson, will wonder what has happened to his political career as he travels around the country and gives speeches on Trump’s behalf. Christie will look back and realize that his career may have peaked at this moment:

The KKK accusations will not go away. This exchange between Trump supporter Jeffrey Lord and CNN commentator Van Jones will not help matters:

Ted Cruz will claim that his victories in Texas and Oklahoma must be interpreted as evidence that he deserves the nomination.  Though he can no longer say that he is the only Republican to have beaten Donald Trump (see comments on Marco Rubio below), this will not stop him.  Instead he will announce that he is the only candidate who has defeated Trump more than once.  He will hammer Trump and urge Rubio, Carson, and Kasich to leave the race and unite around him.

Rubio’s win in Minnesota means that he can finally claim to have defeated Trump in a presidential primary.  He will spend the week reminding Ted Cruz of this fact and, with the Florida primary coming up, will ramp-up his assault on Trump. The comedy act is not over.  Or perhaps it is a tragedy.

Ben Carson should quit.  If he does not, he will be in danger of damaging his reputation among evangelicals.  His book sales will decline. People will wonder if his hands are as gifted as they once were.  (There is a rumor circulating that GOP officials will approach Carson today and ask him to drop out of the race and run for Senator in his home state of Florida).

I am sure John Kasich will try to get as much mileage as possible out of his strong showing in Vermont.  He will hang around until the Ohio primary and try to stay above the fray. He will still be a breath of fresh air.

The Democratic race will intensify.  Bernie did well enough last night to sustain the “revolution.” More money will flow into his campaign.  Sunday night’s debate should be a good one.

Meanwhile, the “kinder and gentler” Hillary Clinton–the candidate who throws out fake John Wesley quotes–will keep citing 1 Corinthians 13 and talk about loving one another.

As Kasich would say: “fasten your seatbelts.”

The Tragedy of Marco Rubio


Have you had a chance to see Marco Rubio’s stand-up comedy act?  He has been getting a lot of laughs on the campaign trail at the expense of Donald Trump.  When Rubio says that Trump has an orange face, has “small hands,” or wets his pants, the crowds at his rallies go wild.

I recently saw a spokesperson for the Rubio campaign talking about the need for his candidate to “hit back.”  Rubio is trying to beat Trump at his own game–insults and personal attacks.  Many politicos are wondering why he did not do this earlier.

Rubio’s raw ambition has been on display during the last week.  He is desperate.  He is willing to do anything to stop Donald Trump, even if it means getting down in the mud with the GOP front-runner.

It wasn’t too long ago that Rubio was in Iowa and South Carolina trying to paint himself as the evangelical alternative to Trump and Ted Cruz.  What happened to this apparently Christian candidate?

This kind of eye-for-eye campaigning is embarrassing for the GOP.  But it is especially problematic for someone who goes out on the campaign trail and names the name of Jesus Christ.

I imagine that Rubio still thinks he is a Christian candidate.  In a world in which “evangelical” is defined by one’s position on abortion, marriage, and religious liberty for Christians, Rubio remains faithful.  As long as he tows the line on these issues, no matter how he behaves, he can claim the Christian mantle.  On this front, he is no better than Trump.

Rubio appears to be yet another product of the unholy alliance between Republican politics and American evangelicalism that came with the rise of the Christian Right in the 1980s. The leaders of the Christian Right–Falwell, Dobson, LaHaye, Bauer, Kennedy, Perkins, Reed, and Robertson–were successful in politicizing American evangelicalism by boiling it down to two or three moral issues.

I am beginning to wonder if it is possible in this day and age to run for President of the United States and still keep one’s integrity as a Christian.

Maybe Stephen Prothero was right when he said that Jesus would vote for Bernie Sanders.