The eponymous Betty White Show aired on afternoon TV in 1954 (her radio career began in 1930 when she was eight). At 98, she continues to work, starring in an ensemble comedy Hot in Cleveland as recently as 2015 and giving voice to a character in Toy Story 4 just last year.
Well before White’s TV debut, she had become an advocate for animals. Though neither a vegetarian nor an animal-rights radical, White promotes responsible pet-ownership and commitment to animal welfare. She rejected the offer of a role in the Oscar-winning As Good as It Gets (1997) because Jack Nicolson’s character mistreated a dog.
Suppose one morning you wake to the news Betty White had been arrested as a principal player a dog-fighting syndicate. You learn she used her connections to animal shelters across the nation to procure puppies and elderly dogs to use as “sparring” partners to sharpen the bloodlust of the fighting dogs. The woman who turned down an opportunity to play Helen Hunt’s mother had made thousands sending homeless dogs to violent deaths. (If you really have never heard of Betty White or you’re just too embarrassed to admit ever watching TV, just insert the name of the most ardent animal lover you know.)
You’re shocked. Knowing what you know about Betty White, you want to know how this could happen. You have questions. You deserve answers.
Now, imagine we are not dealing with Betty White—sadistic abuser of pets. Instead, we are wrestling with the dismay, disappointment, and anger inspired by the millions of evangelicals who supported and continue to support Donald Trump.
Since the 2016 election evangelicals have been taking hits for supporting Trump; appropriately, I suppose. Even those less inclined to be critical have been puzzled: How could evangelicals support a man like Trump?
Evangelicals have sometimes fallen into prudishness. They have, at various times, forbidden their children to go to movies, attend live theatre (except for Christmas pageants), read comic books, and the most extreme among them have refused to own a television. Radio—if carefully monitored—was permissible since very early on the medium’s potential for spreading the gospel was recognized. My aunt refused to allow a Monopoly game in her home since she feared the dice might be misused to gamble. In recent years, some of these proscriptions have been abandoned since they were recognized as being perilously close to legalism (not to mention being downright foolish). Still, evangelicals are known for supporting personal and public morality.
They believe in the sanctity of marriage, that sex should not become a hobby. They reject materialism. They encourage hard work, making a living through honesty and fair play (part of the rationale behind their opposing gambling). Though the practical expressions of this conviction have sometimes left observers nonplussed, they believe women should be honored and respected. They do not deny struggling to rise above their culture’s racism, even though historically they have affirmed the value of all people. They believe society is threatened by the “seven deadly sins” (lust, greed, wrath, pride, etc.) and is blessed by every individual who displays what Paul calls “the fruit of the Spirit” (love, joy, peace, kindness, etc.).
Yet, these people helped elect an unapologetic hedonist to the highest office in the land, a man totally unfamiliar with humility, tolerance, and self-control; a man who made millions from ordinary men and women who believed their lives would change at his roulette tables; a man who relentlessly vilifies his enemies (i.e., anyone who disagrees with him) and shamelessly exploits the spoils system to reward his supporters; a man who degrades women, boasting both that his fame exempts him from consequences in his actions toward them, adding that women crave his attention anyway no matter their protests; a man so consumed with his poll numbers he would “reopen” the nation rather than acknowledge a deadly health crisis; a man who is utterly reckless with his words (spoken or tweeted), not caring about their truth, their potential for generating division, or the pain they cause as long as they charm his base.
Why would anyone vote for this man? (More to come)
