RC Pirate Forums
We Surround Rochester
Aug 28, 2010, Washington DC
Please welcome the newest member of RochesterConservative.com, William Greene. Bill, it’s so good having you onboard! RV
By William Greene
ActiveFaith.us
“And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” (Joshua 24:15)
Should Christians vote for the “lesser of two evils”?
I had an interesting (to me, at least) conversation on my radio show this week with Michael Cromartie, a Christian political analyst and the VP of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. In the middle of the interview, I brought up how Cynthia McKinney (a perennial favorite radical leftist here in Georgia) has announced that she’s seeking to run on the Green party ticket for President.
His response was one of glee, but when I asked him about the whole concept of third party candidacies, he said, “I think that third party candidacies are very, very bad and irresponsible.” He called the well-ballyhooed reports a couple of months ago, about conservative leaders saying they might support a third party candidate if Rudy Giuliani is the GOP nominee, “utterly irresponsible talk on the part of religious conservatives.”
In his explanation for those remarks, he talked about how Ralph Nader was responsible for George W. Bush’s election over Al Gore (since he took votes from Gore), and how Ross Perot was responsible for Bill Clinton’s election (since he took votes from George H.W. Bush). When people “waste their vote” on Candidate X in order to “feel more pure,” then everyone else gets the choices that are “left behind,” and this “dilutes” the chances for the better candidate to win over the worse candidate (relatively speaking).
Most interesting, though, was his statement that, “politics is the art of making choices between relative goods and lesser evils… the candidates that we have to choose are not always the ones that we’d like most to have.” He concluded by saying that when he looks at Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate compared to any of the Republicans, he’ll vote for any of them instead of her.
OK, I get it — it’s the standard argument of voting for the “lesser of two evils,” because if you vote third party, the candidate you really don’t want to win is more likely to win, and you’re really in trouble then. But the first thought that comes to my mind when I hear that argument is: If you vote for the lesser of two evils, aren’t you still voting for evil?
I heard someone (I think it was Alan Keyes) say once that if my choice for dinner is between a poison that will kill me quickly or a poison that will kill me slowly, “I’ll starve, thank you very much.” It would seem to me a more Biblical position to take — although, admittedly, what appears to be a less pragmatic one — for a Christian to vote their conscience (guided by Scripture), regardless of whether the person they’re voting for actually has a chance of winning.
If this were the Presidential election of 1860, and the choice was between a man who said “I support keeping Negroes as slaves, but I’ll appoint judges who will send that issue back to the individual states,” one who says “I’m personally opposed to slavery, but it’s a personal choice for slave owners, and we should send the issue back to the states,” or one who said “Slavery is wrong, the U.S. Constitution supports the right to freedom, and I will fight tooth and nail to get slavery outlawed in America,” who should we vote for? What if that third candidate had very little chance of winning — should Christians still vote for him?
Well, this is the Presidential election of 2008. If the choice ends up being between a man who says “I support the right to choose abortion, but I’ll appoint judges who will send that issue back to the states,” one who says “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but it’s a personal choice for women, and we should send the issue back to the states,” or one who says “Abortion is wrong, the U.S. Constitution supports the right to life, and I will fight tooth and nail to get abortion outlawed in America,” who should we vote for? And what if that third candidate wasn’t a Republican or Democrat?
As a Christian, there’s no way I could compromise and support a candidate who believes slavery is OK, or even that it should be a “personal choice.” And as a Christian, there’s no way I could compromise and support a candidate who believes killing babies in their mother’s womb, or even that it should be a “personal choice” to kill your baby.
And if the Republican party nominates someone like Giuliani, the Republican party is dead in the water. What then?
William Greene is the author of Christian Political Activism: Biblical Principles for Active Faith, a “work in progress.” Read the latest chapters at ActiveFaith.us.
All POW-MIA
8 responses so far ↓
1 phantomlord // Jan 26, 2008 at 4:33 pm
There is no one person out there who will agree with any other person 100% of the time. Sooner or later, there will be an issue on which they disagree. Identical twins disagree, spouses disagree, parents and children disagree. That’s just a fact of life since we all have our own opinions and free will.
Now, I’m not going to tell anyone how to vote. If there are three candidates, one that you agree with 95% of the time, one that you agree with 85% of the time and one that you agree with 20% of the time, it is still up to you to make your choice. However, if the guy with 95% congruency has virtually no chance of winning, the pragmatist in me will vote for the 85% guy to make sure the 20% guy doesn’t get into office.
The 85% guy is going to agree with me on most stuff to begin with and if he disagrees, he’ll likely be receptive to my voice, especially if it is shared amongst a large portion of his base. The 20%er will regularly do things I disagree with and if I’d like to tell them how I feel, they’re likely to say “get lost” before I even get in the door.
I’ve hand written my US Senators (both extremists from the other side) three or four times each in the last decade. Neither of them even sent so much as a form letter back acknowledging their office got my letter. On the other hand, I’ve actually had a couple phone calls with elected members of my own party.
Now, I’m an atheist, so at the end of the day, I have nobody to answer to but the mirror in my hallway before I go to bed (but it is a very honest and critical mirror). As a Christian, you’ll have to answer to your God… but he is a God of forgiveness and doesn’t expect you to be 100% pure all the time, he knows that such a thing can’t exist, which is why he sent his son to die for your sins. I don’t think he’d think any less of you if you cast a vote to keep Satan out of heaven, even if it meant you had to speed to get to the polls before they closed.
2 rochester_veteran // Jan 26, 2008 at 6:05 pm
First off, let me extend a warm welcome to Dr. Bill Greene!
As an American and a Catholic, I vote with my conscience. I will not vote for anyone who supports the killing of preborn humans and I will not vote for anyone who will surrender to the terrorists and jihadists! As a political conservative, I want a President who believes in less government, a strong national defense and more freedom!
3 profg // Jan 26, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Hi, Phantomlord. Let me ask you something:
If there is a candidate that you agree with on 85% of the issues, and the one issue you disagree with him on is slavery — that is, he SUPPORTS the institution of slavery — would you simply say, “Well, the guy who is opposed to slavery (and who I agree with 95% of the time) has virtually no chance of winning, and I only agree with the other candidate 20% of the time, so I’m going to vote for the pro-slavery candidate whom I agree with 85% of the time”?
How about, if there is a candidate that you agree with on 85% of the issues, and the one issue you disagree with him on is “The Jewish Question” — that is, he SUPPORTS a “final solution” of “extermination” — would you simply say, “Well, the guy who is opposed to the legal killing of Jews (and who I agree with 95% of the time) doesn’t have a chance of winning, and I only agree with the other candidate 20% of the time, so I’m going to vote for the pro-Aryan candidate whom I agree with 85% of the time”?
Please understand, this is how pro-lifers view the abortion issue. If abortion is the murder of an innocent human being in the womb — and it is — then there is simply NO WAY I could possibly vote for someone who thinks it’s OK to allow the killing of babies, any more than I could vote for someone who thinks it’s OK to own a black man or kill a Jew… even if I agree with him on 85% of the “other” issues.
Fact is, I can pretty much tell where someone stands on most of the other issues — and how he or she will govern — based on that person’s understanding of the abortion question. No, God might not expect me to be “100% pure” all the time (except for that annoying little statement from Jesus in Matthew 5:48), but I guarantee you that he DOES expect me to have enough heart to oppose the murder of children in the womb.
So it’s not a matter of “pragmatism”; it’s a matter of what’s right and wrong. If more people would vote that way, we wouldn’t even have to have this conversation.
BG
4 phantomlord // Jan 26, 2008 at 10:05 pm
For the record, I am pro-life as well, both from a moral (you don’t need to be religious to have ethics and morality) and scientific standpoint.
I don’t see any of the candidates on the right being a serious threat in that respect. No matter what they do, they still have the Senate and House Republicans to contend with. The base rejected Harriet Miers and her name was withdrawn.
My personal number one issue is the safety of our country. Without that, nothing else matters; not abortion, not the economy and not education. For that reason, Ron Paul was instantly ruled out for my primary vote. That left me with Fred Thompson as the next choice since all of the other candidates have been wishy washy on at least one major issue.
We essentially have three candidates left on the right:
McCain: Who is right on the war but wrong on pretty much everything else
Huckabee: Who plays a good social conservative but is completely backwards economically. In many respects, his populism reminds me of the other governor from Arkansas.
Romney: Who is right on the war and economy but tends to say whatever he needs on social issues to get elected.
Personally, I can’t stand McCain… he’s a RINO just like Arlen Spector or Olympia Snow.
That makes my choice between Huckabee and Romney. I think Huckabee can royally screw up the economy, but I think Romney’s ability to screw up social issues will face a strong check in Congress.
The only way my perfect candidate has a chance to win is for it to be 2012 already so I’d be eligible. Everyone else has a defect of some kind (even my personal political hero, the Gipper). So, I’ll vote strategically to make sure the choice isn’t between the lesser of two major evils, but the choice between a major evil and a minor evil.
If this election comes down to a McCain/Hillary contest, we are in massive trouble regardless of who wins.
5 phantomlord // Jan 26, 2008 at 10:52 pm
and actually, I take back what I said about McCain having national security credentials. He was the sponsor of the bill that would give amnesty to illegals. What’s the point of having a border or laws if they aren’t going to be respected?
6 rochester_veteran // Jan 27, 2008 at 9:45 am
Hey guys, it’s going to be interesting to see who Dave Jeffers supports, now that Fred’s dropped out.
Bill, lately I’ve made some great friends who happen to be Evangelical Christians. I’m Catholic and even though there’s some doctrinal differences between Evangelical Christians and orthodox Catholics, there’s so much common ground that we should form an alliance, especially with the importance of the upcoming elections. That’s a big block of people we’re talking about!
7 rochester_veteran // Jan 27, 2008 at 9:50 am
…oh yeah, I’ve also made a great friend with a conservative who happens to be an atheist, phantomlord!
We care about the direction our Republic is headed, enough to start this website, to spread the word that:
Smaller government is good government and self reliance and love of God and Country is still considered a virtue in our great country. It’s perfectly OK to express your patriotism here as well as witnessing your faith.
8 leavingroch // Jan 28, 2008 at 10:59 am
Wow some really good arguements. Profg you had some interesting point and PL I agree with you. That said I am prolife like PL. Mine does have some religious value but not wholely. But I don’t believe that will be a factor in the near future. I don’t believe a president can make a difference, even if the entire Supreme Court was completely conservative I don’t believe we will be able to change things on the federal level. I believe each state should be able to decide if they want to be prolife or not, like SD that wanted to make it illegal.
But I don’t think it is my deciding factor on the president.
My main concern is safety and economics and border/alien issues. Not necessarily in that order.
We shouldn’t vote on one issue, abortions, an issue that will not change in the near future no matter who is in office, we should look at the big picture.
At this point I will vote against Hillary. Altho I don’t think she can get anything done and may be the lesser of those two evils…lol .
Leave a Comment