Encyclopedia of Opinion
Question
Why do white evangelical Christians support Donald Trump?
Position2 of 3
White evangelicals back Trump because he privileges them in policy decisions
Argument3 of 3

Donald Trump's America First policy speaks to evangelical Christians

Donald Trump's rallying cry - Make America Great Again - resonates with the evangelical Christian lobby.

The argument

Many white evangelical Christians identify with America First policies and Trump's popular catchphrase "Make America Great Again" because it evokes feelings of "better times". These "times" refer, not to a concrete period, but to days when they felt heard. As it stands, many evangelicals feel that their views are not represented in Washington and that the establishment panders to liberal views. They feel attacked by minorities and progressive policies which they do not identify with. This has made them feel left behind and displaced in the political arena. Trump's promises to return their views to the centre stage appeal to them because they see themselves represented by his words and policies.

Premises

[P1]Many white evangelicals identify with "America First" and "Make America Great Again" because they evoke times when they felt heard. [P2] They feel their views go unrepresented in Washington and that the establishment panders to liberals while minorities and progressive policies leave them displaced. [P3] Trump's promise to return their views to centre stage makes them feel represented. [C] Therefore, because Trump's America First policy speaks to evangelical Christians, white evangelicals back him because he privileges them in policy.

Counter-arguments

White evangelical Christians speak to Trump’s America First policy. As a demographic which is an important part of Trump’s base support, keeping them happy and pandering to their concerns has been crucial to his platform from his time as a candidate in the primaries back in 2016. Ensuring a high turnout from them may prove vital in the 2020 race.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] That a slogan evokes better times is a claim about resonance, and the argument concedes those times are not a concrete period — which makes the premise about mood rather than about policy. [Rejecting P2] A sense of being unrepresented is offered without polling, and it is a claim about perception rather than about what any administration did. [Rejecting P3] The premises support a rival position on this same question rather than this one. Feeling heard and represented is an appeal to social insecurity and identity, whereas this position claims the support is bought by policy decisions that privilege the group. The counter-argument reverses the direction entirely, describing a candidate courting a base rather than a base being rewarded with policy.