The answer should be pretty obvious...
In defense of Berlinerblau, there's no way he could have ever predicted that the religious right-wing would take a turn like it has. And, if you ignore "The Donald" and focus on the rest of the political field, Berlinerblau's looking like he would get yet another impressive "hit". But, good luck ignoring "The Donald". The Republican voters have chosen the most unpredictable relief pitcher in recent memory. He's not even throwing pitches we knew existed! Trump is changing the game completely. It's no wonder that political and religious theorists, including Berlinerblau, aren't able to get a hit on this guy.
So what happens to Berlinerblau's theory that "the old cite-and-run techniques of 2008 may increasingly yield, at least among Republicans, to the longer-form interventions" that look more like sermons than speeches? He was almost right. Look at the rest of the Republican hopefuls. Rubio, a serious candidate for arguably less than a month, struggled with having little to no solid religious base to characterize himself on (link). Ben Carson was on the other side of the spectrum as the "most religious" candidate. Lastly, Ted Cruz has made his mark on the race by characterizing himself as "a Christian first, American second". Cruz has completely dismissed the "cite-and-run" technique and,with the help of his Preacher father, shaped nearly every aspect of his campaign around his faith. Although Carson has dropped out, his campaign existed significantly longer than it probably should have, I'd argue, because of his close religious characterization. Rubio, who on paper looked like the easy choice for the Republican's, tanked as he only won 1 state before dropping out. Keeping the baseball metaphor alive, all three candidates seem to be a clear "hit" for Berlinerblau and his theory.
So what about Trump? With 2 clear front-runners, we see Berlinerblau's theory personified (Cruz, maybe Kasich?) against the completely unpredictable. Interestingly enough, the same lines separate the establishment candidates (Kasich, maybe Cruz?) from the "Oh God, please, anyone but this guy" candidate. Does this mean that, keeping with Berlinerblau's theory, the Republican party is just becoming more and more religious? Or, was Berlinerblau totally off base: just another political theoriest left in the wake of Trump's remarkable campaign?
From a religious studies perspective, the implications of Donald's campaign can have lasting and telling complications. What happens if Trump does win the nomination? The Presidency? The support of Trump's transparently pseudo-religious campaign will signify a major divide in the way religion is viewed among religious scholars and the way it is viewed by the public (like there wasn't one before, HA). Does a Trump presidency show that the detail-oriented work of religious scholar's has completely lost base with the way the world actually thinks about these issues? If a majority of American's want, or at least, are ok with their religious discussions "Trumpified", what does this mean for religious scholars and the way their findings work in the world outside of higher education? What does this mean for religious discussions socially? The truly unbelievable aspect of Trump's campaign is that he has HUGE support. He's no longer being supported by only your crazy neighbor down the street who flies a confederate flag and that one fraternity guy who thinks it's cool. Trump's significant support seems to suggest that popular opinion prefers his ideologies to the more "traditional" Republican beliefs and to the findings typically expected from religion scholars.
If this is the case, will Republican's follow suit? Will religious discussions move away from the details and focus on just quick and possibly flawed religious references? Under a Trump presidency, will we all be forced to read "The Art of the Deal?
No comments:
Post a Comment