More Americans Say Personal Immorality Not Disqualifying for Elected Officials

https://www.prri.org/research/prri-brookings-oct-19-poll-politics-election-clinton-double-digit-lead-trump/

Quote:

---

Compared to 2011, Americans today are more likely to say elected officials can still perform their public duties in an ethical manner even if they have committed immoral personal acts. More than six in ten (61%) Americans say immoral personal behavior does not preclude public officials from carrying out their public or professional duties with honesty and integrity; only 29 percent of the public disagree. In 2011, the public was much more divided over the connection between personal behavior and professional ethics. Forty-four percent of Americans said public officials could still conduct themselves honorably in their professional duties even if they had engaged in immoral behavior in their personal life; an equal number (44%) of Americans disagreed.

Across the political spectrum, Americans today are less likely to believe personal transgressions prevent public officials from performing their duties well. Seven in ten (70%) Republicans and more than six in ten Democrats (61%) and independents (63%) say public officials can behave ethically in their professional roles even if they acted immorally in their personal life. Notably, in 2011 only 36% of Republicans agreed, compared to nearly half of Democrats (49%) and independents (46%).

No group has shifted their position more dramatically than white evangelical Protestants. More than seven in ten (72%) white evangelical Protestants say an elected official can behave ethically even if they have committed transgressions in their personal lifea 42-point jump from 2011, when only 30 % of white evangelical Protestants said the same. Roughly six in ten white mainline Protestants (60%) and Catholics (58%) also believe elected officials can behave honestly and ethically in their public roles regardless of their personal behavior. In 2011, only about four in ten white mainline Protestants (38%) and Catholics (42%) held this view. Notably, religiously unaffiliated Americans have remained constant in their views; six in ten (60%) believe elected officials who behave immorally in their personal lives can still perform their duties with integrity, compared to 63% in 2011.

---

The data are clear. Why the change?

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Buying into Satan's temptation that if we just bow to him, then we can control the kingdoms of this world has led to tribalism and a lust for power.

---

What?

---

I think we've bought into Satan's lie that we can use the power of the state to create a Christian society. It's led to tribalism (my team vs your team). It's led to this lust for power, to the point that many don't see how faith is being used to pander and manipulate in order to attain power for the right team.

For the same reason that most Catholics don't care about abortion.

Let's take a texags R&P poll:
Can an elected official behave honestly and ethically in their public roles regardless of their personal behavior?

RetiredAg said:

---

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

RetiredAg said:

---

Buying into Satan's temptation that if we just bow to him, then we can control the kingdoms of this world has led to tribalism and a lust for power.

---

What?

---

I think we've bought into Satan's lie that we can use the power of the state to create a Christian society. It's led to tribalism (my team vs your team). It's led to this lust for power, to the point that many don't see how faith is being used to pander and manipulate in order to attain power for the right team.

---

I don't see anyone in my circle advocating for the use of the state to create a Christian society. I see lots of people who are voting for the ones that are most likely to leave them alone to live their lives as christians in peace. To paraphrase our perspective on Trump: "I can't spare this man, he fights!"

I have no issue if the people leading the charge for individual liberty (I consider myself a "soft" libertarian) are atheists, evangelicals, jewish, or a host of other identities. What concerns me is if they are actually consistent in the application of our shared ideologies. I've had my fill of co-workers, politicians, contractors who wear their christian identity on their sleeve but fail when it comes time to follow through on their work, regardless of personal failings or hypocrisy.

It is an interesting shift. I remember the 90's where people screamed "character counts" by the same people who seem to no longer consider that to be of value in the people they want leading them.

Marco Esquandolas said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Did they do a survey of Chinese Rastafarians? I'd like to see how their views have changed in the past 5 years.

---

Answer the question u dirty troll

---

Yes, I think an elected official can behave honestly and ethically in their public roles regardless of their personal behavior. I think there is a correlation, but it is possible. I can behave honestly and ethically at work while being a bad husband, father, neighbor, etc.

What do you think?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Let's take a texags R&P poll:
Can an elected official behave honestly and ethically in their public roles regardless of their personal behavior?

---

I certainly agree that an elected official can be honest and ethical at their job while being the opposite in their own personal lives.

I think the more relevant question may be: Should we care about the honesty and integrity of elected officials in their personal lives? It seems that maybe this is the heart of the shift described in the article.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Let's take a texags R&P poll:
Can an elected official behave honestly and ethically in their public roles regardless of their personal behavior?

---

I certainly agree that an elected official can be honest and ethical at their job while being the opposite in their own personal lives.

I think the more relevant question may be: Should we care about the honesty and integrity of elected officials in their personal lives? It seems that maybe this is the heart of the shift described in the article.

---

*can* is the operative word here. based on the polling results, it seems most Americans basically agree with that position. Evangelicals are also in line with this trend, but even more so than the rest of us. The question is why evangelicals used to think differently, and why so many suddenly don't anymore.

Marco Esquandolas said:

---

Frok said:

---

I love how the article points out "white" evangelical Christians. This is red team vs blue team and nothing more.

---

Sure bud. Anything to avoid answering the question. Why do you think WHITE CRACKER-ASS evangelicals dont care about the morality of elected officials compared to 6 years ago? Thats a really quick change.

---

Same reason why you now care, red team vs blue team.

It's easier to look past errors of someone on your team than someone on the other team. The guy on the other team is always way worse.

Frok said:

---

Marco Esquandolas said:

---

Frok said:

---

I love how the article points out "white" evangelical Christians. This is red team vs blue team and nothing more.

---

Sure bud. Anything to avoid answering the question. Why do you think WHITE CRACKER-ASS evangelicals dont care about the morality of elected officials compared to 6 years ago? Thats a really quick change.

---

Same reason why you now care, red team vs blue team

---

Is it though? This seems to be something that's only really been made obvious in the last election. Yes, I agree that tribalism is at play here in the shifting views described in the OP, but pointing out this shift in views is a response to the shift, not some red team vs blue team fight.

Marco Esquandolas said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Let's take a texags R&P poll:
Can an elected official behave honestly and ethically in their public roles regardless of their personal behavior?

---

I certainly agree that an elected official can be honest and ethical at their job while being the opposite in their own personal lives.

I think the more relevant question may be: Should we care about the honesty and integrity of elected officials in their personal lives? It seems that maybe this is the heart of the shift described in the article.

---

*can* is the operative word here. based on the polling results, it seems most Americans basically agree with that position. Evangelicals are also in line with this trend, but even more so than the rest of us. The question is why evangelicals used to think differently, and why so many suddenly don't anymore.

---

Maybe a few of the officials they elected into office are honest and ethical at their job, but not in their personal life. So they realized, along with religiously unaffiliated Americans, that it is possible.

What do you think?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Let's take a texags R&P poll:
Can an elected official behave honestly and ethically in their public roles regardless of their personal behavior?

---

I certainly agree that an elected official can be honest and ethical at their job while being the opposite in their own personal lives.

I think the more relevant question may be: Should we care about the honesty and integrity of elected officials in their personal lives? It seems that maybe this is the heart of the shift described in the article.

---

I think we should care as I think there is a correlation. "One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much."

But that wasn't the poll. And the "heart" of the poll is only what the author makes it (which seems to have something to do with white evangelical Christians). Not the poll question itself.

In regards to Trump I think he is a direct response to the left's constant attack on middle America. Trump capitalized and struck a chord with these people. Since many of these people had been criticized for their culture and ignored by politicians they were able to look past Trump's immoral lifestyle in order to have someone on their team be in charge. It made it easier considering the other candidate also had many reasons to dislike her.

In present America we are so divided that which team you are on is more important than anything else. It's not right. It's something Christians need to try hard to avoid. But it's not unique to evangelicals. This describes most of us right now.

Frok said:

---

In regards to Trump I think he is a direct response to the left's constant attack on middle America. Trump capitalized and struck a chord with these people. Since many of these people had been criticized for their culture and ignored by politicians they were able to look past Trump's immoral lifestyle in order to have someone on their team be in charge. It made it easier considering the other candidate also had many reasons to dislike her.

In present America we are so divided that which team you are on is more important than anything else. It's not right. It's something Christians need to try hard to avoid. But it's not unique to evangelicals. This describes most of us right now.

---

they were willing to make a deal with the devil, in other words.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I think we should care as I think there is a correlation. "One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much.

---

I don't see pigs flying outside my window. Nor do I hear a fat lady singing. Yet here I am agreeing with you. Weird.

Frok said:

---

In regards to Trump I think he is a direct response to the left's constant attack on middle America. Trump capitalized and struck a chord with these people. Since many of these people had been criticized for their culture and ignored by politicians they were able to look past Trump's immoral lifestyle in order to have someone on their team be in charge. It made it easier considering the other candidate also had many reasons to dislike her.

In present America we are so divided that which team you are on is more important than anything else. It's not right. It's something Christians need to try hard to avoid. But it's not unique to evangelicals. This describes most of us right now.

---

I'm reminded of what Spurgeon said, "of two evils, choose neither". But, we aren't even talking about a one-time concession simply to win an election. We're seeing certain demographic groups of Christians that have completely flipped on their stance of "character counts". Character no longer counts if it means winning power. That's a position that no Christian should ever hold.

Frok said:

---

In regards to Trump I think he is a direct response to the left's constant attack on middle America. Trump capitalized and struck a chord with these people. Since many of these people had been criticized for their culture and ignored by politicians they were able to look past Trump's immoral lifestyle in order to have someone on their team be in charge. It made it easier considering the other candidate also had many reasons to dislike her.

In present America we are so divided that which team you are on is more important than anything else. It's not right. It's something Christians need to try hard to avoid. But it's not unique to evangelicals. This describes most of us right now.

---

I'm sympathetic to your explanation. We aren't asking ourselves about this in the church as a whole or treating it as a crisis facing evangelicalism. We're simply seeing people upset that white evangelicals specifically didn't abandon trump in the face of two incredibly low character individuals, consequently delivering the election to HRC. It's another attempt at shaming and guilting people into voting differently, rather than attempting to understand why they voted that way. Guilt by association as it were.

Quote:

---

We're simply seeing people upset that white evangelicals specifically didn't abandon trump in the face of two incredibly low character individuals, consequently delivering the election to HRC. It's another attempt at shaming and guilting people into voting differently, rather than attempting to understand why they voted that way. Guilt by association as it were.

---

But, as followers of Christ, our job is not to pick the lesser of two evils. Ours is not a "lesser of two evils" faith. Our job is to be a witness to His Kingdom here and now. Our job is to be the hands and feet of Christ now. We damage that witness when we champion those whose worldview is incompatible with His Kingdom. We, the church, doesn't need political power to influence our society. I couldn't care less who won out of Trump or HRC, as they both represent the world's way, not Christ's.

We have no obligation to pick sides between two worldviews that are antichrist. I'd argue we have an obligation to reject both.