Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump and religion in politics

While Reagan and Trump used religion to advance their political vision, their messages and missions are completely different.

In August 1982, Ronald Reagan’s father-in-law died. Nancy Reagan’s beloved father, Loyal Davis, was an atheist — a troubling fact for the 40th president. So Reagan wrote a handwritten private note telling how the prayers of colleagues and friends had healed him of a painful stomach ulcer.

Providing hope for what lay beyond, Reagan implored the older man, “We are promised that this is just a part of life and that a greater life, a greater glory awaits us… and all it takes is that you believe and tell God. You put yourself in his hands.”

For decades, some of Reagan’s critics have questioned his religiosity, noting that he rarely attended church. But the letter to his father-in-law reveals a deep and sincere faith. That belief also played a major role in his political positions and policies, as I discuss in my book “Righting the American Dream: How the Media Mainstreamed Reagan’s Evangelical Vision.”

In recent years, Donald Trump, another former president and current Republican presidential candidate, has often spoken about his faith, posed for photo ops with right-wing preachers and praised his “favorite book” — the Bible.

The latest demonstration was a video in which Trump promoted the sale of an expensive version of the Bible, valued at $59.99. “Let’s get America praying again,” he urged viewers. “As we enter Good Friday and Easter, I encourage you to purchase a copy of the God Bless the USA Bible.”

While Reagan and Trump – two of the most media-savvy Republican presidents – used religion to advance their political vision, their messages and missions are starkly different.

Why religion plays a role in politics

In my book I explain that underlying American politics is a religious vision that connects citizens to civic values. The most common view is that God blessed America and commanded its citizens to spread freedom and democracy. It’s an idea that has underpinned American patriotism and inspired American domestic and foreign policy for decades.

Reagan telegraphed the belief in an America blessed by God by describing the United States as “a shining city upon a hill.” Reagan reversed the original meaning of a Biblical phrase from a 17th century Puritan sermon. In Matthew 5:14, Jesus warns that the world will judge whether or not his disciples, a symbolic city on a hill, hold to their ideals. By adding “shining,” Reagan sanctified American exceptionalism and the role of the United States as a global model of freedom.

Once Reagan was elected, he looked for practical ways to put into practice his faith in freedom, which he, like many evangelicals, believed came from God. By lowering taxes, ending industry regulation, and privatizing government functions, he hoped to give individuals more economic and political freedom.

Reagan’s love of freedom also fueled his hostility toward the Soviet Union. He labeled the communist government “an evil empire” because it denied its citizens freedom. Reagan positioned geopolitics as a cosmic battle between good and evil and made defeating communism a religious calling.

I argue that Reagan’s evangelical vision became mainstream through the media, which reported his interviews and public statements. This view was not always clear, but Americans were happy with his policies, even if they lacked the religious dimension. In other words, when Reagan proposed letting the free market shape the economy, limiting federal power, and standing up for democracy worldwide, you didn’t have to be an evangelical to agree.

A new religious vision

Trump saw an opening for a new kind of religious politics when he ran for president in 2016. But unlike Reagan’s vision of spreading freedom and democracy here and abroad, Trump’s vision remains closer to home.

I would argue that Trump’s religious vision is rooted in white Christian nationalism, the belief that the white Christians who founded America hoped to spread Protestant beliefs and ideals. According to white Christian nationalists, the founders also wanted to limit the influence of non-Christian immigrants and enslaved Africans.

Likewise, Trump’s rhetoric, mainstreamed by the media, portrays “real” Americans as white Christians. Many of them are men and women who fear that secularists and religious, racial and ethnic minorities want to replace or even eliminate them.

By most measures, Trump is not personally religious, although supporters dispute that claim. But he has convinced conservative Americans, especially white evangelicals, that he is “God’s instrument on earth.”

When confronted with his financial misconduct, sex crimes and outrageous lies, the moneylenders say God works through flawed men. And the evidence of that work — the U.S. Supreme Court overturning abortion rights, building the border wall and moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem — has won him their support.

Trump’s mainstreaming of white Christian nationalism is evident in his latest plan. The God Bless the USA Bible has an American flag on the cover. Scriptures include the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Pledge of Allegiance and the handwritten lyrics of singer Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the USA.” Part of the turnover will benefit Trump’s organization.

Christianity and nationalism go hand in hand

Trump rejects America’s role as the “shining city on a hill” and its mission to spread freedom and democracy. His goal is to restore what he calls the “vision of the founding fathers.” It’s a view shared by Americans who believe the US was founded as a Christian nation, despite evidence to the contrary.

Religion can be a force for good or evil. Reagan believed that his religious vision would promote individual freedom and spread democracy worldwide. Americans can agree or disagree about whether he was successful and at what cost.

But Trump’s religious vision — a vision that preaches the Bible, discredits democracy and mocks governance — is not one that Reagan would recognize.

This commentary originally appeared in The Conversation.