Most Americans might assume that religion and morality had some connection. That’s clearly not always true—religion has driven horrible actions in the past—but many great moral leaders have also been great religious leaders. The world’s great religions are certainly based on the theory that being observant requires following a moral code. In many cases, the whole idea of a “hero” is simply someone who held to that moral code even in the face of great adversity.
However, for America’s white evangelical Christians, it turns out that there is something more important than morals. In a 2011 study, the Public Religion Research Institute asked Americans if elected officials could fulfill their public duties if they committed immoral acts in their private lives.
White evangelical Protestants were the least forgiving. Sixty-one percent said such a politician could not “behave ethically,” twice the 30 percent who felt that such a politician could manage it.
Among all groups, evangelicals were the least tolerant on this point. But in the era of Trump, evangelicals have undergone a sea change.
Five years later, in October, 2016, P.R.R.I. asked the same question. The percentage of white evangelical Protestants who said that a politician who commits an immoral act in their personal life could still behave ethically shot up from 30 to 72 percent. The percentage saying such a politician could not serve ethically plunged from 63 to 20 percent.
That question was asked at the same time that the information on Trump’s Access Hollywood tapes had reached the public. Evangelicals quite literally determined that sexual assault, repeated adultery, bald-faced lying, and stiffing people on business deals were all acceptable behavior in their leaders.
The go-to analog for Donald Trump among evangelical voters is King David. David, they argue, had a friend killed so he could sleep with the man’s wife—even though David had at least eight wives of his own. And David decided to let his son off when he raped his sister. And he went to war with another son, eventually killing him, before setting a third son on the throne.
But hey! David was a great king, so clearly that means a guy with … a few character flaws such as premeditated murder … can still be a tremendous leader.
There are a few problems with this. First, David was a bronze age warlord of a tiny kingdom that was routinely marched over by larger powers. A leader whose kingdom was trivial enough that the only possible archaeological evidence of his existence is a broken tablet that mentions David in passing as someone who was defeated in a battle. David’s intrigues and betrayals also set that kingdom on a path to splintering and destruction.
None of this suggests that David is a model for the modern leader of the world’s most powerful nation. What it does suggest is that David, and other names thrown forward, are nothing more than excuses for why people who are supposed to care about morality … simply don’t.