The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum "Pragmatic Considerations for Principled Conservatives"

This year’s election is similar to most election cycles. America rarely has towering political leaders who are practically perfect in every way, and this is neither the most important election in all of history nor is it one to sit out due to imperfect candidates. Once again, we will choose thoughtfully between average candidates, some poorer than others and some less bad than others. Rather than such reality being a disincentive, that acknowledgement may comfort and energize us.
Below are several conclusions that I shared in a lunch conversation recently with a thoughtful and well-read young believer.

First, “Less (harm) is More (safety).” If there are few perfect candidates, then why not seek to support the one who is less dangerous? I remember ranting against a previous President because Proverbs says, “he who commits adultery is unwise.” I still believe that such glaring moral failing is indicative of deep moral untrustworthiness. However, if faced with voting for an unwise candidate who would caucus with other decent people for better ends as opposed to a theologian who will vote as liberal as they come, I return to the “who will hurt or help our overall concerns the best” standard.

Feel free to call me a pragmatist, but that’s a lot of what politics is. So, I hereby stipulate for the comment section that I am not a political perfectionist and will continue (as I have since 1980) voting for fairly good political ideals among the contestants while not requiring exact agreement with my ideals for the public square. First, then, do no harm by either directly or indirectly supporting a Marxist, or a liberal pawn, or one who will lead our nation leftward.

Second, tradition is, as Chesterton put it, the “democracy of the dead.” Appreciating history is better than ignoring it. Let’s give the voices of the past the megaphone again. We might learn something from them, without necessarily emulating every aspect of their program. In this case, maybe our grandparents required more personal responsibility, thought the social safety net should be the size of a handkerchief, avoided international conflagrations, and accepted more religion in the public square than most do today. It’s not necessary to strip the ideologies of the past from those prior generations in the attempt to live productively in a secular society. Neither is it always persuasive to revise our ancestors and treat them as if they were all Lockeans and natural law advocates, or as my young lunch mate put it: “We don’t have to act like George Washington was opposed to H1b visas.”

Actually, previous leaders were far more religion-friendly than most candidates today. We are capable of respecting their voices, applying any wise threads from them, while not being required either to be theocrats or advocates of rationalism. Let your religion thrive as you consider political matters this year and be guided by Scripture. After all, everyone else is being guided by their religion.

Third, sometimes “it is the path of wisdom to vote for or support those who can mitigate greater evil.” Take Israel PM Netanyahu as an example. I know, I know, I know, many people are quite anti-Israel right now, and this opinion does not believe Israel is still the promised land. However, I have to admire the leader who speaks at the UN and invites all other “moral cowards” to feel free to walk out, and holds up his beeper, saying: “Remember these beepers.” The only group standing up to Muslim imperialists in the Middle East is Israel. Good for them, and it’s fine to send them a few jets, a few dollars, and support them without committing our own troops to ground combat. Just as with Maxim #1 above, so this Maxim #3 may be phrased: “Sometimes you support others who will blunt, mitigate, or oppose the spread of evil.” That may be called pragmatic wisdom. If that can be done with little effort or resources, all the better to know that the enemy of your enemy may well be a friend of sorts.

So, as we go to the polls in a month, if a vote is close, why not go with the one who might lend a hand to lessening or thwarting evil, immorality, secularism, or leftism—even if the candidate or party is far from perfect?

Finally, use the next month to invest a little time in familiarizing yourself with current issues and candidates. It’s really OK to be a bit pragmatic and support an imperfect candidate who you think will cause less danger . . . instead of one who promises perfect constitutionalism but has no chance in the world of being elected. That’s almost like cheering for your scrawny 12-year old boys—who you love dearly and have discipled well—to win the Super Bowl against grown men. Instead, pick a real NFL team to support and don’t be deluded into wishful thinking.

And some ultra-conservative like me needs to say this: to all who are looking for perfect ideologically pure candidates, sitting this election out physically or sitting it out by voting third party—C’mon folks, you have a far greater likelihood of wasting your vote seeking an immanent eschaton than any of us in our lifetime can expect a libertarian or other sliver-party to win—is futile. Probably no standing ovations await great persons of mighty principle who unintentionally provide a real liberal with the margins to win in a narrow contest. And, as we are saying: the House and the Senate matter—every single election.

Try this: vote for the one who will do less damage. That’s actually how most elections are decided. Time for some “principled” conservatives to grow up, stop playing political board games, and make any difference you can as a Christian. But for goodness sakes, it’s hardly wisdom to turn over the Senate in several close races to those who will legislate very contrary to most Christian convictions due to a kind of perfectionism.
One can be a realist and a conservative at the same time. Despite the armtwisting and altar calls by some, we’re not really voting for the eschatological regime we’d love this year—just another American Senate and House. Help all you can, reason as best you can with friends, but let’s not expect either heaven or hell to be inaugurated in 30 days.