Donald Trump's America First policy speaks to evangelical Christians

The argument

Proponents of this position read the America First programme as the point at which many white evangelical Christians came to see themselves as the intended beneficiaries of a political agenda rather than an afterthought within one. They identify with America First, and with Trump's popular catchphrase "Make America Great Again", because the words evoke feelings of "better times". Supporters stress that these "times" refer to no concrete period that could be dated or described; what is being recalled is the condition of having felt heard, so the phrase works as an invitation to remember that condition rather than as a historical claim. That resonance depends on a sense of present exclusion, which the argument sets out directly. As it stands, many evangelicals feel that their views are not represented in Washington and that the establishment panders to liberal views instead. They describe feeling attacked by minorities and by progressive policies with which they do not identify, and the cumulative effect is a sense of having been left behind and displaced in the political arena — present in the country but absent from the politics conducted in their name. Against that background, on this view, Trump's promises to return their views to centre stage do the decisive work. Supporters argue that evangelicals see themselves represented by his words and his policies, and that what appeals is not merely being acknowledged but the expectation that acknowledgement will be converted into decisions taken in their favour. America First is understood as a commitment about whose priorities come first at home as well as abroad, so a constituency that reads itself into that promise is being offered something more concrete than sympathy. It is on these grounds that proponents conclude white evangelicals back Trump because he privileges them in policy decisions.

Premises

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.