It’s no secret why much of the religious right has flocked to Donald Trump after their first choice, Ted Cruz, washed out in the primary. The fundies want Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges overturned at all costs–even if it means putting this country in the hands of a man who is arguably the most morally unqualified major-party candidate in memory. If there was any doubt of this, one veteran of the culture wars put that to rest when he declared he’d have to apologize to the Almighty if he didn’t vote for Trump.
If you’ve watched the religious right for any period of time, you probably know the name of Richard Land. In more than a quarter-century as president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s public policy arm, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Land was a major player when the culture wars were at their height in the 1990s. He hasn’t let up since stepping down from the ERLC in 2013. Since July of that year, he has been president of Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, where he has made no bones about training pastors who will continue to push social conservatism from the pulpit.
Seen in this context, it came as no surprise when this culture war veteran penned an op-ed in The Christian Post, an evangelical-aligned newspaper, announcing that he is supporting Trump–reluctantly, but firmly. Land, who also doubles as the paper’s executive editor, openly admits that he was not at all enamored with Trump during the primary; of the 17 primary contenders, Trump “was my 18th choice.”
However, now that the dust has settled, Land says that Trump is the only credible option in November. He sees this contest as “a ‘fork in the road’ election,” which rules out supporting a third-party challenger. He can’t support Hillary Clinton either, and justifies it with the kind of boilerplate argument we’ve come to expect from a culture war veteran.
Land blasted Hillary on two counts. Not only was she “the most pro-abortion candidate ever nominated by a major party,” but he argued that the Clintons are “morally and financially corrupt on a scale previously not experienced in American presidential life.” Indeed, Land argues that Hillary’s corruption is so massive that she could literally bring down the government if she’s in the White House.
For those reasons, Land feels this election is a choice between “the lesser evil (Donald Trump) vs. the greater evil (Hillary Clinton).” While he openly admits that Trump “will in all probability not be a good president,” he feels “a moral obligation” to support the lesser evil in order to stop the greater evil. The alternative, he says, would be to put someone in the White House who would be “a terminal president who will destroy this venerable republic.”
To those “#NeverTrumpers” who are evangelicals, Land has this to say.
“Some Evangelicals have said, ‘If I voted for Donald Trump, I would have to apologize to Bill Clinton.’ Frankly, I feel that if I didn’t vote for Donald Trump in order to defeat Hillary Clinton, I would have to apologize to Jesus.”
Okay, Richard. I’ll play. You say Hillary’s moral and financial corruption is a deal-breaker for you. So in order to stop her, you’re willing to put someone in the White House who finds it acceptable to plaster a private cell phone number on social media, mock the disabled, condone violence at his rallies, cut deals with known con men, trash the family of a war hero, twiddle his thumbs at blatant anti-Semitism from some of his more ardent supporters, and tap a serial sexual harasser as an adviser.
And you’re willing to turn this country over to a man who has not even begun to assure the nation that he will keep his distance from his vast financial holdings if elected. That same man also carries so much debt that he could potentially be vulnerable to the demands of banking and financial interests at home and abroad. He also has dealings with a number of businesses whose structures are so opaque that we really don’t know the identities of some of his business partners.
But then again, Land is the last person to lecture anyone about this election. In 2012, on his radio show, “Richard Land Live!”, he came under well-deserved fire for suggesting President Obama was using the Trayvon Martin case to “gin up the black vote” for the upcoming election. Moderate Baptist blogger Aaron Weaver discovered that Land had lifted his screed almost word-for-word from a column in The Washington Times. Weaver subsequently discovered Land had taken material from other sources and passed them off as his own words.
Following an internal investigation, the ERLC executive committee canceled Land’s show and formally reprimanded him. Land announced later that summer that he would retire in 2013. Soon after his retirement, he was hired at SES. Normally, plagiarism is the kiss of death in the academic world. For instance, Rachel Dolezal lost any chance at redemption when she was caught red-handed copying an internationally famous painting and passing it off as her own work. Sounds to me that Land is a classic case of failing upward.
From where I’m sitting, Land, like any other culture war veteran, is blind–or myopic, at best–in his right eye. That’s about the only way you can justify overlooking Trump’s outrages just because he’s made the right clucking noises on abortion and gay rights. Fortunately, a significant number of evangelicals–including this one–have figured out that social issues aren’t the be-all and end-all of everything.
