Why Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils

Tags: 

I know. It’s the wrong season for thinking about politics. Nonetheless, I’m thinking about it, and sometimes you have to serve up your ideas while they’re still warm.

A perennial (or perhaps biennial or quadrennial) question in the American political experience is “Should people of conscience vote for the lesser of two evils?” The question is of interest to all who care about right and wrong but carries special interest for Christians since their aim is to do all things in obedience to Christ.

My thesis is simple. In a vote between two evils, Christians ought to back the lesser of the two.

For the purposes of this essay, I’m assuming readers already believe Christians ought to vote. My aim is to present three arguments for voting for the candidate who is least evil, whether the office is President of the United States, U.S. Senator or Village Clerk.

1. Such a vote is the lesser of two evils.

The first argument for voting for the lesser of evils is in the proposition itself: less evil. Who can be against that? Here’s the argument one statement at a time:

  • It’s good to do what results in less evil.
  • Voting for less-evil candidates results in less evil.
  • Therefore, it’s a good thing to vote for less-evil candidates.

Let’s evaluate the argument one premise at a time.

The first premise should be an easy sell. All good people want to see less evil in themselves and in the world around them. Some may object that there really are no good people—and they’ve got a point. No one is “good” in the sense of Mark 10:18 (ESV: “No one is good except God”) or Romans 3:12 (“no one does good”). But many are good in the sense of Romans 15:14 (“you yourselves are full of goodness”), and even more are good in the sense of Proverbs 13:22 (“a good man leaves an inheritance”) and 14:14 (“a good man will be filled …”). All decent people are in favor of doing what results in less evil.

The second premise is the controversial one. What sort of voting behavior really results in less evil, especially in the long term? Three attitudes toward that question predominate. Some voters maintain that, over time, more good (less evil) comes from supporting only those candidates who are a near-perfect match to the ideal. In this view, though voting exclusively for superb candidates may have worse results in the short run, we would eventually see excellent results if everyone voted this way.

Another attitude is that there is no voting behavior that results in less evil. The world is doomed to ever increasing wickedness and there is nothing any of us can do about it. Evil will increasingly dominate until Christ establishes His geopolitical kingdom on earth by force.

Parts of that attitude resonate with me. In the end, evil will come to dominate the globe as never before, and that situation will be reversed only when Christ conquers. However, the Scriptures that reveal this end game have been in the Bible for more than two thousand years (much longer, if you include Daniel!). During that interval, human history has witnessed many periods of increased justice (and diminished evil) in various regions—sometimes for centuries.

Christians understand that human nature will remain sinful regardless, and that the redemption of the planet comes only through the reign of Jesus Christ. But it doesn’t follow that we are unable to reduce the evil in the world in one place or another for a few decades or longer.

So what kind of voting results in less evil in our land? The third attitude toward that question is that a voting strategy that results in less evil in the short run often results in less in the long run as well. Good ideas are amenable to more good ideas, and even a leader with few good principles is more open to improvement than a leader with zero good principles.

An objection is that the leader with only a few good principles must have a whole bunch of bad ones. And just as good ideas tend to lead to more good ideas, bad ideas tend to lead to more bad ideas. But this argument actually supports the third attitude: if both good and bad thinking tend to lead to more of the same, the leader who starts out with fewer erroneous beliefs is the best choice.

If less evil is better than more, and voting for the lesser of evils results in less evil, it follows that this is a wise way to vote.

2. The alternatives are imaginary.

At this point, we need to clarify what we mean by “evil” when we say “lesser of two evils.” In my experience, debaters on this point tend to equivocate, defining “evil candidate” sometimes as “garden variety sinner” and other times as “people like Stalin.” The “never vote for a lesser of evils” crowd uses a Stalinesque idea of “evil candidate” to argue against voting for a garden variety sinner they don’t like. The equivocation comes when they turn around and defend voting for the candidate they do like (also a garden variety sinner) because he is no Stalin.

Not exactly a strong argument.

So what do we mean by “evil” when we say “lesser of two evils”? As long as we’re internally consistent (that is, if we don’t equivocate), it doesn’t really matter. If we say an “evil candidate” is any candidate who is not Jesus Christ, then we really have no choice but to vote for “the lesser of evils.” On the other hand, if we say that an “evil candidate” is one who belongs in a whole different class from your average sinner—the class that includes Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein—it’s pretty unlikely that we’ll ever be choosing between two candidates who are in that class.

Either way, we’re stuck with voting for someone who is less imperfect than someone else.

“But there’s another category!” some insist. Any Christian is not an evil candidate. The thinking here is that if there are two top candidates who are unbelievers and one unelectable, obscure candidate who is a true disciple of Jesus Christ, we can vote for the third and avoid promoting the lesser of evils.

What this counterargument has going for it is that there is indeed a fundamental difference between the regenerate and the unregenerate. You’ll get no denial of that from me. It would also be hard to overstate the potential of that fundamental difference to change how a person weighs his options and governs.

However, the difference in how the believing leader weighs his choices and governs is a potential difference, not necessarily an actual one. Though the believer is fundamentally devoted to Christ, he or she does not necessarily respond to every choice with a conscious and passionate desire to know what would please our Lord. We should make every choice that way, but we all know we don’t. So what’s the real governing difference between an unbelieving candidate and a believing one? Because of the blessing of common grace—often in the form of Christian principles that influence even the thinking of some atheists—a Christian who is immature or poorly informed may govern less Christianly than an unbeliever who has been instilled with deeply Christian habits of thought and true breadth of knowledge.

Of course, having “deeply Christian habits of thought” will not save the non-Christian. Only faith in Christ, and the resulting imputed righteousness, can do that. But these habits will make him a wiser ruler than anyone who lacks them.

If you get out much, you’ll meet non-Christians who, despite their unregenerate condition, think and act much like Christians should. I don’t get out much, and even I’ve met a few. What I’ve encountered more often are professing Christians who do not evidence particularly Christian ways of evaluating the kinds of the moral and ethical questions statesmen face.

To summarize, then, while all believers are “righteous” in a sense that all unbelievers are not, this spiritual and positional difference does not necessarily correlate with governing in a truly Christian way. So when it comes to voting, we can’t class all non-believers as “evil” and all believers as “good” in any sense that relates meaningfully to ability to govern wisely and justly. The real choice we face is one of choosing among candidates who are evil in varying degrees and in different ways.

3. You can still vote your conscience.

I often see this issue framed as though there are two, and only two, choices: voting for a candidate who can win or voting your conscience. It’s an interesting disjunction. Let’s scrutinize it a bit. This argument basically says that you can either vote for a candidate who is nearly perfect or, if you vote for another guy, you are voting for all the things he lacks—you are falling to pragmatism. So a citizen (especially a Christian one) can either vote his conscience or he can vote according to practical considerations.

There’s an unstated premise in this argument: practical matters have nothing to do with conscience.

But how well does that hold up? Suppose I’m fleeing from a burning hotel and discover a damsel in distress on the way out. She’s helpless, pinned down by a heavy beam. For some reason, my many hours of typing haven’t resulted in enough muscle to free her. So what’s the right thing to do? If I stay with her, we both die. If I leave her there and run for help, someone might be able to get her out. The idealist reasons that practical results are irrelevant and conscience requires that a man of principle must not abandon a damsel in distress. But most people abandon idealism in these situations. They understand that conscience sometimes dictates that we do what is practical.

Proponents of “voting your conscience” often make the mistake of assuming that if practical considerations can ever define the conscionable choice, they must always define the conscionable choice. Worse, they often assume that if practical considerations have any role in making ethical choices, they must have the dominant or exclusive role.

But the truth is that there are at least three approaches to the relationship between conscience (principle) and practical results:

  1. Pragmatism: practical results are always decisive and are all that matter.
  2. Idealism: practical results are completely irrelevant; only principle matters.
  3. Principled realism: practical results are part of the principle that matters.

Two of these approaches are ways of “voting your conscience.”

If I believe that voting for candidate C (who is a close match to my principles) will result in the election of candidate A (who believes in very little that I know to be wise and good), and I vote for candidate B (who is better than A) for that reason, I am voting my conscience. I just don’t happen to be an idealist.

Whatever the ticket ends up looking like in 2012, Christians ought to vote with the goal of putting power in the hands of the lesser of evils.

[node:bio/aaron-blumer body]

Principled Realism vs. Idealism

Great article, Mr. Blumer.

Regarding options 2 and 3, I propose that item 3 might be called wise idealism and item 3 naïve idealism. If my conscience tells me it is unwise to vote in such a way as to be supporting the "most evil" candidate, then it is "ideal" for me to vote for the "lesser of two evil" electable candidates. Stated differently, if there is no question that a vote for an unelectable candidate will result in a win for the "most evil" candidate, then the voter's conscience is best served by voting for the lesser of two "evil" potential winners.

Someday, the USA may have a true 3 way race where it is difficult to determine who are the likely winners (I'm really not looking forward to that day...see what happened in RI), but we have never seen a race like that in our lifetimes.

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg

Helpful Evaluation

Aaron,

Thanks for helping us think through a challenging issue. I think you are correct.

Cordially,
Greg Barkman

G. N. Barkman

I don't think all the

I don't think all the alternatives are imaginary. Take a presidential race in which both major party candidates are repugnant to you beyond what your conscience allows you to endorse. And they wouldn't have to be a Stalin before that were the case for at least some voters.

Voting for a third (or fourth or fifth) party candidate who is below the MRT (Minimum Repugnancy Threshold), even if you know s/he can't win, is not throwing your vote away because "affecting the outcome" is not the only consideration.

Voting

Thank You Aaron! You summarize my thoughts much better than I could. If I had to vote for the one I agree with most, I would have to do write-in for myself every time. However, we must try to spread as much righteousness and wisdom as is practically possible. Voting for pastor and voting for president are not in the same realms. Two totally different approaches must be made. You made it quite clear.

John Uit de Flesch

One chief assumption

Aaron,

I appreciate what you are saying. However, it presupposes that a person is elected according to the vote. I'm not sure that's true. I've been wrestling with this in my mind so these thoughts are a bit raw (but that's what a blog is for anyway). If God sets up leaders and controls them as the Scripture indicates, then my vote is less about my choosing who wins the election and more about my doing what a responsible, Christian citizen does during an election. If I vote for an "evil," then what does that say about me?

Think of it this way. If the "man of sin" is revealed at the mid-point of the tribulation, his chief political accomplishment being peace in the Middle East three and a half years behind him, and if democracy continues to spread throughout that region of the world, then at some point it's possible that people, maybe even Christians, will have voted for him as the "lesser of two evils."

Matt

Typo...

Sorry - I meant to say >> I propose that item 3 might be called wise idealism and item 2 naïve idealism. But everyone probably figured that out already. Wink

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg

MRT...

DavidO, thanks for the Minimum Repugnancy Threshold concept. Handy.
I also agree that "affecting the outcome" is not the only consideration. Some reading I was doing a few months ago brought the subject of utilitarian ethics to mind again. It was fiction--which can be a great place to explore ethical systems. Anyway, the writer took the view that "greatest good for the greatest number" was always the operative prinicple--or at least his strongest characters seemed to think that way.
But I think the truth is more complex. I would say it this way: other things being equal, the greatest good for the greatest number defines the right choice. But "OTBE" covers quite a bit in this case.

Saw this little bit on a public TV lecture where a guy was talking about what he called "the trolly paradox." You have a trolly out of control going down this track. It comes to a fork. Then a series of questions has to do with helpless people on one fork or the other and what choices you would make if you can't save them both. He sets you up by asking, if there are two people lying helpless on track A and one lying helpless on track B, would you throw the switch to track B? Most would say yes because you can't stop the trolly and that's the greatest good for the greatest number.
Then he throws you a curve and says "What if there's a bridge over the track and the guy who was helpless on track B is now standing on the bridge... and if you push him off, he'll stop the trolly and save the other two?"
At the end, the greatest-good-for-greatest-number "score" is the same, but the meaning of the act is quite different.

Some things are just wrong, no matter what the practical outcome is.

I don't believe that voting for a bad dude for office is one of those things if it prevents a worse dude from getting the power of the oval office.

A big part of what it comes down to is a point I barely touched on in the essay: is voting for any man an endorsement of his flaws or an endorsement of his virtues? If he is a 98% good match w/our own convictions, and 2% bad match, we tend to think our vote is a vote for his virtues. But what if he's 98% messed up and 2% good? Why does our vote now mean we are endorsing his flaws?
Doesn't make sense to me.
Either a vote is a vote for his virtues regardless of the mix or the vote is a vote for his flaws, regardless of the mix. If the latter is the case, we should never vote for anyone!

Soveriegnty and the vote

Matt Walker wrote:
I appreciate what you are saying. However, it presupposes that a person is elected according to the vote. I'm not sure that's true. I've been wrestling with this in my mind so these thoughts are a bit raw (but that's what a blog is for anyway). If God sets up leaders and controls them as the Scripture indicates, then my vote is less about my choosing who wins the election and more about my doing what a responsible, Christian citizen does during an election. If I vote for an "evil," then what does that say about me?

Think of it this way. If the "man of sin" is revealed at the mid-point of the tribulation, his chief political accomplishment being peace in the Middle East three and a half years behind him, and if democracy continues to spread throughout that region of the world, then at some point it's possible that people, maybe even Christians, will have voted for him as the "lesser of two evils."

First, I think we have to work through what it means that God sets up and removes rulers. Does it mean that ordinary cause & effect lead to ruler A but He intervenes and raises up ruler B? Or is it that He uses means in carrying out His purposes? I think the biblical evidence favors the latter view as what usually happens.
The alternative tends toward fatalism... I could brush my teeth every day but God is in control of tooth decay, so why bother? I don't mean to mock; I'm just using an extreme example to explain my point. God is in control of tooth decay. Yet I am responsible to be a good steward of my health.

So I think the fact that God is in control of who becomes President has important implications but it doesn't mean that I have no role or responsibility in the chain of cause and effect.

As for the "man of sin" scenario. Very interesting. I think I'm inclined to say that, assuming we don't know that's who he is, our responsibility would be to vote for good policy and good character as far as we can discern it. Since the MoS is a master deceiver, it would be his responsibility to bear if he has gained power by false pretenses (Tangent: aren't all pretenses false? but that's how we say it). In other words, I don't think it's my fault if I vote for a guy who--after due diligence on my part--seems to be the best electable candidate and he later turns out to have been lying to all of us. That will be his burden at the judgment.

Not just individual candidates

Aaron,

This is a very good essay. I live in DC, it would be nice if all y'all outside the beltway would assist in kicking the bums out this election. I'm undecided myself. I don't like Romney or really Gingrich, but either would be a great alternative to the Obama White House. One interesting point to bring up is that when you vote for a man for President, you're voting not just for a man, but an entire governing apparatus. There are something like 7,000 Presidential appointments throughout the government. There is generally an appointee in every single office across every department. So part of the lesser of two evils idea (at least for President) is that there is a lesser of two evils not just on an individual level, but on the macro appointment level. When you vote for a president, you're often also voting for the Director of the Civil Rights Office at the Justice Department.

Regarding #2, it's interesting that in polling, if you hold up a named candidate (say Barack Obama) and "the other guy" (the GOP nominee), the generic option gets a lot better results than any named candidate. This is because we fill in our ideal candidate when not talking about actual people. We are all naturally idealistic.

Shayne

Some agreement

Aaron,

I do agree with you that we probably should work through God's influence in democratically held elections. My guess here is that God raises up rulers. Certainly that's the implication from Daniel, is the clear point of Paul's in Romans in reference to Pharaoh, and the "fullness of time" from Galatians seems to indicate some connection with the Roman Empire and Caesar. I don't think, however, that God's raising up leaders and my assurance of that (so much so that I end up voting for someone I don't believe will necessarily win) tends towards fatalism. There is a strong connection between my soteriology and my political point here. I vote for whom I believe should be our president. God actually chooses the man (or woman).

Again, these are pretty raw thoughts here. Smile

Matt

Principle

The question, Matt is how raises up rulers. I'm pretty sure we're all agreed that He does.

What if we try to put the question in the form of a principle:
Does God's sovereign control of something ever mean that our choices have no cause-effect relationship to it?
To say it another way, should we think that because God is in control, our actions have no causative result? And if they have a causative result, can we say that result has no ethical relevance?

As a general rule, I think we're on thin ice to reason that "Since God is in control of the outcome, the rightness of my action depends on what I mean by it and not by what it actually produces." (In this case, 'what I mean by it' is "I mean to support the man who is really top notch," even though he has no chance of winning.)
But I'd be interested in arguments to the contrary. I'm sure there are some.

At Christmas we often say it's the thought that counts. If I give a can of salted nuts to a colleague and he turns out to have an allergy and the nuts make him sick, I can justly console myself that I meant no harm. But if someone tells me in advance that the nuts will make my friend sick, can I reason "God is in control of who gets sick, and I mean to bless this person, so I'll give the gift and leave the results to God"?
(Let's ignore for the sake of argument that my friend ought to have the sense to avoid what will make him sick!)

My point is that it is not easy to use a sovereignty of God argument to honor intentions and dismiss real results.

Who raises them up?

Matt, to add to my agreement with Aaron's answer to you: in our political context, try to view the electorate as part of how God raises up rulers. In the same way God might raise up Nebuchadnezzar, he also raises up a majority of voters in each state to form electoral votes, who elect the President. God still holds Nebuchadnezzar to account for his moral and governmental choices, even though God raised him to power. So too, I think he holds us to account for choosing our leaders (or not).

Great article, Aaron. As a

Great article, Aaron. As a resident of Iowa, obviously I have an important role to play in the presidential election as I vote in the upcoming caucus (aren't we special?). I intend to caucus for my "ideal" (well, almost ideal) candidate on Jan. 3, but come the general election I will vote for the candidate that is the better of the two (or possibly three?) choices, even if he/she is not my "ideal" candidate.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Rather ironic that many who

Rather ironic that many who are unwilling to vote for the lesser of two evils happily will go to work and be under the vocational authority of someone who is quite contrary to their faith. So, you cannot support a potential President because he or she does not fit some spiritual, moral or general criteria so instead, you will vote for a 3rd party so you can go on your merry righteous way feeling absolved. But your conscience doesn't seem to plague you in this manner while you support the person(s) for whom you work who may be involved in all kinds of debauchery and your working for them continues to profit them and enable them to do so. Apparently the lesser of many evils is okay when it hits your pocket book in an immediate way but not when you are at a distance, then you may posture righteously. UGH.

Primaries

Work hard in the primaries to get the best candidate possible. Nevertheless, when the primaries are over one will have to honestly consider which of the two major candidates would be best for the country. Ross Perot gave us Bill Clinton. Clinton never won a majority of the votes in either presidential election. The only hope for the failed Left in the upcoming election is to divide and conquer its opponents.

Pastor Mike Harding

For Alex:

I'm at a complete loss as to what you are saying. I guess it would be ironic...if it were true. If I was working for an employer who was involved in debauchery then I may have to get another job. I imagine my conscience would bother me about that. After scrolling through the different posts in this thread I find that I’m in the distinct minority so I’m not sure who else you are talking about here. Yet your argument does not apply to me at all. So again, I’m at a complete loss as to what you are saying. Maybe there was someone else you had in mind.

Matt

Inconsistency argument

Matt, I think his point is that it's inconsistent to oppose lesser of evils voting but be OK working for someone who is as "evil" as any of the candidates.

He is probably right that most people do not consider themselves responsible for what their employers do outside the business--including those who would oppose voting for someone who doesn't quite meet their MRT (see a few posts up).
But because we're talking about "outside the business," I doubt it works well as an inconsistency argument.

But the question remains (also from a few posts up)... why is a vote for a "really bad candidate who is less bad than the other guy" seen as an endorsement of his flaws rather than as an endorsement of his virtues (even if he only has one the other guy lacks)?

Evil A vs. Evil B

Regarding Newt - it is an interesting article, but there were other articles in the same vein when Romney was at the head of the pack. None of the front runners are ideal candidates. Many have been saying that for months, really, and then Cain gained rock star status and then crashed hard because people found he wasn't ideal either. And let's not even get started on Ron Paul. Far from ideal.

This isn't the campaign for a Reagan/Roosevelt/Churchill/Thatcher leader. We may have to wait another generation before someone truly great comes along. (don't everyone jump on the Roosevelt comment - I did not say I agree with his positions, only that he was a truly great leader)

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg

No more giants?

I was reflecting on our times a bit a few weeks ago and the question struck me: why don't we have any more giants? I guess there are, arguably, still a few. But the whole concept of a "great man" seems to have died in Western civilization. I don't know which died first, all the great men or the idea of a great man.
When I say "great" I don't even mean "good," necessarily. "Giant" is probably a better word than "great." We don't even have evil giants anymore.
You could make the case that Steve Jobs was a giant of the tech. industry. Bill Gates might be in that category.
But we don't have great statesmen, great artists, great poets, great writers... we don't even have great evil dictators (Hussein was evil but a pretty pathetic excuse of an evil dictator. I put in the same sentence w/Hitler and Stalin but he's like the little league version of those guys. Likewise for the madmen in Iran and North Korea)

Maybe we still have giants but they are not recognizable in their own time. Or maybe we've killed greatness.
Either way, I agree that we will not get to choose among giants in 2012.

Even liberals are faced with this quandary

I remember discussing options with a colleague who personally makes the statement "I could never vote for a Republican." Last race, I told her "I cannot believe I have to vote for McCain." She replied: "I cannot believe I have to vote for Obama."

This time, it will either have to be a vote for Mr. Obama again, a vote for the Republican du jour, or a non-vote for a single-digit off-party candidate. Neither side of the viable candidates will be thrilled, both will be wondering where the inspirational leadership of days gone by has gone.

Maybe my kids will see the next giant. And, for their sake, I hope its not the Liberals' turn.

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg

Aaron Blumer wrote: Matt, I

Aaron Blumer wrote:
Matt, I think his point is that it's inconsistent to oppose lesser of evils voting but be OK working for someone who is as "evil" as any of the candidates.

He is probably right that most people do not consider themselves responsible for what their employers do outside the business--including those who would oppose voting for someone who doesn't quite meet their MRT (see a few posts up).
But because we're talking about "outside the business," I doubt it works well as an inconsistency argument.

But the question remains (also from a few posts up)... why is a vote for a "really bad candidate who is less bad than the other guy" seen as an endorsement of his flaws rather than as an endorsement of his virtues (even if he only has one the other guy lacks)?

The underlying principle of the point is what works as an inconsistency argument. One cannot object on the very grounds they ignore for other pursuits.

But, my own thoughts are that the most qualified candidate is a person who understands principles of freedom and nationalism. Government leadership is not a spiritual exercise, it is a civic and human exercise. If someone understands our constitutions and its principles and can maximize its expression in governing this country, they are the most qualified.

So it staying away from the voting booth you are still committing an act, an act of omission which will affect the outcome. By voting for a third party you are saying they match your demands, but they don't, really, not in full, now do they? You will still have some objections to even this third partier.

Evil, Less Evil, Least Evil, but Never No Evil

Alex Guggenheim wrote:
You will still have some objections to even this third partier.

Good point, Alex. We'd have found something wrong with George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and (sorry, all who apply) Ron Paul, too. And so since it is all relative, since there is never a "No Evil" candidate, the best vote, therefore, is for the one who will have the greatest net positive impact. Voting for a "least evil" candidate (third party candidate) is a vote for one of the majority candidates. If the third party candidate is a conservative, then the result is a greater percentage for the viable liberal, and is therefore a vote for liberalism.

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg

Just curious, would you

Just curious, would you consider your pragmatic "lesser of the two evils" approach to be the kind of thing Daniel did in Daniel 1:8?

Was it "less evil" to eat the kings meat or "less evil" to refuse to eat the kings meat.

Surely you wouldn't consider his principled stand, to not violate his conscience, a good thing would you?

We can't have people getting all uppity and thinking outside the Hegelian dialectic now can we.

from Wikipedia

Quote:
Something is only what it is in its relation to another, but by the negation of the negation this something incorporates the other into itself. The dialectical movement involves two moments that negate each other, something and its other. As a result of the negation of the negation, "something becomes its other; this other is itself something; therefore it likewise becomes an other, and so on ad infinitum"

If two things are two sides of the same coin, they are very closely related although they seem different.

Your argument then, is that we should choose the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menshevik ]Mensheviks over the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union ]Bolsheviks ?

I wonder which you identify with more the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadducees ]Sadducees or the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees ]Pharisees ?

Just suppose that there were a new guy on the block, (some radical named Jesus, who represented a threat to the power of the two party system) who did not represent the various political, social and religious roles represented by the Pharisees or the Sadducees, would you stick to the two party system because one represented the lesser of two evils?

I wonder if this is how you do your local church government as well? Since Joe Bob is only hooked on pornography and not actually committing adultery (physical intercourse with someone to whom he is not married) like Jimbo, then we will put the "lesser of the two evils" on our deacon board.

interesting standard you have. Mind if I steal your car? That's the lesser of two evils you know, cause I was going to steal your daughter.

No wonder we have the immoral, godless, spineless politicians we have in this country. The only criteria for public office is that they are "less evil" than the current occupant of the White House. Less evil being relative of course.

farmer Tom N wrote: Just

farmer Tom N wrote:
Just curious, would you consider your pragmatic "lesser of the two evils" approach to be the kind of thing Daniel did in Daniel 1:8?

1. The question assumes an incorrect definition of pragmatism.
2. The Daniel analogy fails because there is no similarity to voting for an elected official. (The Daniel case refers to an action rather than a person, refers to something forbidden vs. something not, etc., etc.)

Quote:
Surely you wouldn't consider his principled stand, to not violate his conscience, a good thing would you?

Of course I would. I recommend that you read the article.

Quote:
Hegelian dialectic now can we.

I have reason to doubt that you even know what the Hegelian dialectic is. It has no relevance to the discussion.

Quote:
Your argument then, is that we should choose the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menshevik ]Mensheviks over the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union ]Bolsheviks ?

Read the article and see if you can get my argument a little more accurately.
Quote:

Just suppose that there were a new guy on the block, (some radical named Jesus, who represented a threat to the power of the two party system) who did not represent the various political, social and religious roles represented by the Pharisees or the Sadducees, would you stick to the two party system because one represented the lesser of two evils?

The analogy fails again for the same reasons.

Quote:
I wonder if this is how you do your local church government as well?

Actually, yes, pretty much. I have never yet voted for a perfect man.

Quote:
interesting standard you have. Mind if I steal your car? That's the lesser of two evils you know, cause I was going to steal your daughter.

Again, you confuse categories.
Stealing = action. Candidate = man.
Stealing = prohibited in Scripture. Voting for an imperfect man = not prohibited.

Quote:
No wonder we have the immoral, godless, spineless politicians we have in this country. The only criteria for....

Again, I recommend you actually read the article... see if you find where I said "only criteria."

I probably won't respond any further if you don't give the piece a thoughtful read and interact with what's actually there.

The case for the Constitution Party

The case for the Constitution Party:

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

Under section: http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Sancity of Life ] Sanctity of Human Life

Quote:
The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God's image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born.

To that end, the Constitution of these United States was ordained and established for "ourselves and our posterity." Under no circumstances may the federal government fund or otherwise support any state or local government or any organization or entity, foreign or domestic, which advocates, encourages or participates in the practice of abortion. We also oppose the distribution and use of all abortifacients.

We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all unborn human beings, without exception. As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father.

I would like to suggest that perhaps this 3rd alternative is the least evil!

With the above in mind, has

With the above in mind, has the Constitutional Party addressed the process of embryo cryopreservation which is an an aspect of in vitro fertilization (IVF)? Never minding the process itself which requires medical personal, along with everyone else involved, to treat the fertilized egg as something other than an object with the qualifications of "legal personhood" (though not necessarily every element of the process but some indeed) .

The cryopreservation is, according to the standard of the Constitutional Party, equal to taking an adult human and freezing them against their will or, of course, disposing of them. This definition and position by the CP would automatically make illegal the process of IVF because of, in the least, its by-product of cryopreservation. Again, I am interested if they have taken this posture and applied it as thoroughly as it would require and dealt with these inevitable issues.

Least Evil Viability

Jim Peet wrote:

I would like to suggest that perhaps this 3rd alternative is the least evil!

I agree, but they are not yet viable. A vote for any conservative 3rd party right now is a vote for liberalism.

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg

@JNoël

@JNoël

Who said:

Quote:
I agree, but they are not yet viable. A vote for any conservative 3rd party right now is a vote for liberalism

I will probably vote Republican (as I have in every Presidential election since 1972 - except the giant mistake I made in 1976).

What if we were accountable solely for our vote (voting for principle) .... and not the outcome of the election (voting pragmatically)? Then a pro-life vote would be, in my view, the only voting choice.

Pragmatic or Principled?

Jim Peet wrote:

What if we were accountable solely for our vote (voting for principle) .... and not the outcome of the election (voting pragmatically)? Then a pro-life vote would be, in my view, the only voting choice.

I have come to believe voting for the viable opposition to liberalism is a principled vote. If it is not, then I honestly do not know who I would vote for. I personally do not know any faithful, Spirit-led Christian person who would be a skilled President capable of inspirational leadership, biblically sound and wise decision making, and knowledgeable in world politics and the inner workings of the American bureaucracy. If I did, I suppose someone might be able to convince me to vote for him, but I would really have a tough time doing so if it were obvious that such a vote would be nothing more than a vote for a liberal victory.

America gets ungodly presidents because the voters are generally ungodly. Nothing supernatural is going to happen at the ballot boxes that will miraculously put a faithful believer in the Oval Office. God uses humans as part of his sovereign plan. If Christians in America return, en masse, to faithful Christian living, then God may provide a revival that will impact the masses to seek God and, eventually, those masses will bring forth candidates who are more in line with our thinking.

I probably just jumped off a cliff. Feel free to kick some dirt on me to finish the job. Smile

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg

Liberal Victory

Clearly, this point of view avoids at least a few minor facts.

Which don't seem to get in the way of the thinking of too many people today.

For instance, If any of you had actually read " http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/038... ]Liberal Fascism " by Jonah Goldberg. You would know that the modern Repugnant party is simply the flip side of the coin which features Demonrat socialists on on side and Progressive Repukes on the other.

Teddy Roosevelt was a candidate of the Progressive Party in 1912 (go look at Wikipedia).

Prescott Sheldon Bush (George Herbert Walker Bush's father) was tied to the bank which helped Adolph Hitler. Let's put it this way. Bush ran in the same circles, supported the same causes and was involved in running organizations with direct ties to Hitler and his progressive eugenicist friends.

Quote:
Bush was politically active on social issues. He was involved with the American Birth Control League as early as 1942, and served as the treasurer of the first national capital campaign of Planned Parenthood in 1947. Bush was also an early supporter of the United Negro College Fund, serving as chairman of the Connecticut branch in 1951.

Planned Parenthood was started by Margaret Sanger ( who's Wikipedia entry is full of lies about her beliefs about abortion, Hitler and eugenics) see this instead http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm Margaret Sanger . Sanger was a Malthusian eugenicist who's ideas and philosophies she espoused in her publication "Birth Control Review" which where the basis for the Nazi Eugenics movement.

Quote:
"The leaders in the German sterilization movement state repeatedly that their legislation was formulated after careful study of the California experiment as reported by Mr. Gosney and Dr. [Paul ] Popenoe. It would have been impossible, they say, to undertake such a venture involving some 1 million people without drawing heavily upon previous experience elsewhere." Who is Dr. Paul Popenoe? He was a leader in the U.S. eugenics movement and wrote (1933) the article 'Eugenic Sterilization' in the journal (BCR) that Margaret Sanger started. How many Americans did Dr. Popenoe estimate should be subjected to sterilization? Between five million and ten million Americans. "The situation [in the U.S.A ] will grow worse instead of better if steps are not taken to control the reproduction of mentally handicapped. Eugenic sterilization represents one such step that is practicable, humanitarian, and certain in its results."

I could go on and on. Look at the last few years. Since GWB left office, both his wife, his daughter and his mother have admitted that they are pro-abortion, and pro-sodomy marriage. Juan McMarkOCain's wife and daughter have both called themselves pro-choice and pro-sodomy marriage.

During his presidency,(I did not vote for him for conscience reasons) Jorge the Younger Shrub,GWB, signed Progressive/Socialist legislation such as Ted Kennedy's "No Child Left Behind" "Medicare Part D" TARP( "I had to abandon free market principles to save the free market")"Faith Based Initiatives" (ever heard of separation of church and state) McCain-Feingold (what ever happened to free speech, even his own Supreme Court found this one unConstitutional), establishing the strip search police at the TSA, all of these things were philosophies of the Progressive left.

So how exactly is voting for a "lesser evil" Repugnant candidate working for us.

And some of you will vote for this guy as well. Wonder where his true political roots lie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dMcjJEXt9To ]Willard Mittens Romney

Wow, Tom, you remind me of

Wow, Tom, you remind me of most Ron Paul supporters. Every time they start in with their wild screeds it just further convinces me not to vote for him.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Nothing relevant

farmer Tom N...
I thought I might read Liberal Fascism but I'm thinking now I probably won't.... if it's full of strained conspiratorial dot-connecting and dot-imagining.
In any case, the OP is not about connecting ideological dots back to eugenics, and Hitler, etc.

It's about the very common American scenario where Christian voters face a difficult scenario in November. The scenario is one in which two candidates are top contenders and everyone else is far behind by a large margin. Of the two top contenders, we face a choice between a guy with a fair number of bad ideas and a guy with even more bad ideas. To look at it positively (I'm a 'half full' guy I guess), we face a choice between a guy with a fair number of good ideas and a guy with a whole lot fewer good ideas.
As to character, the choices are often similar.

I'm assuming it's obvious to most people that effectiveness in that office requires a combination of character, sound principles and actual skill. The thing about character and skill is that, when combined with bad ideas, they make the badness of the ideas worse rather than better--they increase the likelihood of effective accomplishment of bad policy.

So it tends to come down to ideas--socio-political principles and ideas about how to implement them.

It's pretty easy to make a case that voting for more good ideas is better than voting for fewer good ideas.

Add to the mix the premise that voting for any of the folks who are in the alternative parties, and far behind the big two by a very large margin, is effectively a subtraction of a vote from the best guy among the top two. Because it's a zero sum situation, subtraction from candidate A is, effectively, addition to candidate B.
(Interestingly, TRs effort to get elected as a Progressive resulted in the election of the Liberal, Woodrow Wilson... on balance, it's doubtful that Taft would have been much better, but that turn events illustrates the 3rd party dynamic. TR came closer to election than any third partier before him or after him. But still not very close.)

I didn't develop this idea much in the essay due to the need to limit the length.

As for liberal fascism, it does exist and is a major ideological problem of our day. There is influence in both parties because ideas are always heavily cross-polinated in the U.S. (and probably everywhere else in this age). That's unfortunate, but the solution is not to vote for a guy who will not win and thereby ensure the victory of a real liberal fascist (quite possibly) over someone far less supportive of that agenda.

Pinch of liberal fascism or tablespoon of anarchism?

Just wanted to point out that while many conservatives have, arguably, a pinch of liberal fascism in their thinking, most libertarians I've read have more than a pinch of anarchism in their thinking. Given the high value Scripture places on government power (Rom.13 is a quick, easy example), I'd rather have the pinch of liberal fascism than the tablespoon of anarchism.

Farmer Tom N, You've written

Farmer Tom N,

You've written in a style classic of conspiracy theories, mostly by using classic logical fallacies. Guilt by association is no way to convince people of your position.

Reading your descriptions of the history of the Bushes would be similar to me.

My grandfather was a racist until late in life. He ran in the same circles as KKK members. His son went to Bob Jones! Horrors! I went to Bob Jones and associated with children of racists. Therefore, what. . . should you suspect me of being a racist? You're ignoring the basic fact that people are autonomous. Yes their associations and past influence them, but at the end of the day GWB was VERY different from his grandfather's Northern liberalism. What does the fact that GWB's children now support gay marriage have on GWB? It could mean something sinister, but most likely they just disagree with their father, which is a pretty common occurrence.

Conspiracy Theorist

Thanks for the the kind words.

Haven't had time to respond. 10 hours days and a trip to the doctor.

I believe in a lot of conspiracy theories. Like the one where Satan uses his forces of darkness to convince mankind that being a conservative is the same as being a believer in Jesus Christ.

Like the one that is portrayed in the movie http://agendadocumentary.com/ "Agenda" where the godless communists tell the world how they intend to destroy the USA, and then do exactly what they said.

As for GWB if you don't understand the truth about GWB by now. No amout of facts or information is going to change you mind.

If you believe that GWB was good for this country, that a vote for him was "the lesser of two evils" so therefore it was a good vote, we as a nation get what we deserve when Willard "mittens" Romney becomes our next president.

Me, I'm going to stand before the Great Judge someday, and give account for what I did in my life, whether it be wood, hay or stubble, or something else. And I'm not going to have any trouble at all saying to my Savior, "Lord, I refused to compromise with evil, by using the right you gave me to choose my elected leaders, too choose a man who is a liberal progressive/socialist, just because he had an R by his name on the ballot."

My conscience is clear.

Oh, and one more thing. I was not trying to convince you using guilt by association, (although I will admit the limited amount I wrote sounds like that) I was trying to get some of you to actually open your eyes and see the whole picture. Read "Liberal Fascism", find out what the truth is about the origins of the communist/socialist/fascist/progressive left. Far to many "hero's" of the Repugnant party, have numerous ties and ideological links to the radical left. They just tell you what you want to hear at election time, so you will be duped into voting for them. "Jesus is my favorite philosopher" being one of the most egregious ever.

Part-whole ... Genetic...

farmer Tom N wrote:
... to convince mankind that being a conservative is the same as being a believer in Jesus Christ.

Just curious. Who believes that?

Quote:
As for GWB if you don't understand the truth about GWB by now. No amout of facts or information is going to change you mind.

This is a common technique in conspiracy thinking: rather than making a claim and supporting it with solid evidence and sound reasoning, declare it to be obvious and assert that those who can't see it are just hopeless.
Not a big deal, but it explains why so many conspiracy theories don't get anywhere: "it's obvious and you're hopeless" is just not persuasive.
It's not a reason to believe something (because it amounts to "Believe it because we said so") and people generally want reasons, especially if the claim seems implausible from the start.

Quote:
If you believe that GWB was good for this country, that a vote for him was "the lesser of two evils" so therefore it was a good vote, we as a nation get what we deserve when Willard "mittens" Romney becomes our next president.

Well, fortunately there is this thing called grace. We have pretty consistently gotten better than we actually deserve as a nation. In the case of GWB, I have no doubt at all that we got better than we would have had we elected the other guy.

Quote:
I'm going to stand before the Great Judge someday, and give account for what I did in my life, whether it be wood, hay or stubble, or something else.

True. I have argued that we'll also give account for the results of our choices because results are sometimes critical factors in weighing the right and wrong of a choice. I have yet to hear a counterargument on that point.

Quote:
Read "Liberal Fascism", find out what the truth is about the origins of the communist/socialist/fascist/progressive left. Far to many "hero's" of the Repugnant party, have numerous ties and ideological links to the radical left.

I already know where these ideas came from. The problem with the reasoning there is some kind of part-whole fallacy (or maybe genetic fallacy also). It doesn't follow that if a person believes in an idea or two that came from Source A, he agrees with the whole ideology or is One of Them.

The part-whole/genetic fallacy goes like this:

  • The Nazis believed in hard work (IOW, belief in hard work is part of Naziism)
  • Aaron believes in hard work. (Aaron holds to part of Naziism)
  • Therefore, Aaron believes in all Nazi ideas/is a Nazi (if he believes part, he believes all)

You can 'prove' anybody is anything that way. Could 'prove' that Obama is a member of the KKK.

(But for what it's worth, yes, GWB evidenced several Liberal notions. Oddly enough, they were mostly in the arena of economics... but he had some Liberal thinking by omission also: seemed to have very little concern about the size of government, for example.)

I conceded earlier that there is constant mixing of ideas in America and many of the notions of the French radicals (and later radicals such as Marx) have found a home where they really don't belong. But sentimentalism and populism are also bad ideas that came from bad places... and anarchism. My point is that there are no ideologically unstained parties or candidates.

As for saying whatever they want in order to get elected, pretty much true, sadly. But it's usually possible to follow a person's history and get a pretty good idea of how he really thinks. In their defense, the White House is not quite like anything else, so there is never any solid predicting of how a leader will perform once he gets there. Sometimes candidates make promises they really mean, but they have no idea how difficult keeping those promises is going to turn out to be. (But how do you get elected in this society without making those promises and doing the whole populist song and dance?)

I have a book recommendation for you. Pick up a copy of The Conservative Mind
by Russell Kirk. I haven't gotten all the way through it, but the first several chapters alone are worth the cover price. Edmund Burk and John Adams... a great deal of wisdom there.

The Perfect Government

Aaron Blumer wrote:
... there are no ideologically unstained parties or candidates.

I've been telling people this for a long time. Our Heavenly Father is the perfect Father, and look at the silly things we do. Let's even consider the coming millennial Kingdom. Jesus Christ will rule for a thousand years. There can be no better government than a God-led theocracy. Even with that there will be those who rebel against God, and, when Satan is released and deceives the nations, there will be numbers as the sand of the sea to rebel in the final battle.

America has some big problems these days, but there is still no other country on earth I'd rather live in.

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg

We vote to glorify God

Scripture teaches us to do all to the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31), and that all in government are to protect its citizens (Rom 13), with that in mind we should not vote for the lesser of two evils, but instead use our vote to promote Gods glory and honor? We live in a country where we have the privelage to vote for who ever we want even if they are not on the final ballot, so why should I feel compeled to pick the lesser of two eviles when I can write in a vote for the choice that will best honor God? Scripture does not tell me to vote for who will win but to make a choice that best glorifies God.

The book of Romans teaches

The book of Romans teaches that a government that punishes evil doers is glorying to God, Romney promises to enforce the law. He will be doing God's will and glorifying him in this manner so you may feel comfortable voting for him. Obama, on the other hand, is violating the law and illegally making recess appointments. He is not glorifying God.

Glorifying God

DBaltich wrote:
Scripture teaches us to do all to the glory of God (1 Cor 10:31), and that all in government are to protect its citizens (Rom 13), with that in mind we should not vote for the lesser of two evils, but instead use our vote to promote Gods glory and honor? We live in a country where we have the privelage to vote for who ever we want even if they are not on the final ballot, so why should I feel compeled to pick the lesser of two eviles when I can write in a vote for the choice that will best honor God? Scripture does not tell me to vote for who will win but to make a choice that best glorifies God.

I pretty much addressed this argument in the article... just not using the term 'glorifying God.'

We're all agreed here that glorifying God is the right thing to do and that whatever is right is what glorifies Him best.
The question is what glorifies Him/is right in this situation? I've argued that a) results are often a major factor in defining what action is morally right (and, for us, what action glorifies God). I've also argued that b) since all people running for office are sinners, we really have no choice but to vote for someone who is "evil." In that case, "less evil" has to be more/better glorifying to God than "more evil."

First, if option a, b, and c

First, if option a, b, and c are evil to different levels then how can our choice of that option glorify God, evil may have stages but at the end of the day it is still evil, and therefore does not glorify God, (be patient with me I am just asking questions as a learner). Second, following the lesser of two evils logic and lining it up with the sovernty of God, if God has already appointed who will be elected shouldnt we vote for the one who we will win the election regardless of their level of evil? Third if I have the freedom to write in a canidate that has no chance to win but is a choice worthy to glorify God why not write them in.

Evil choice vs. more or less evil person... etc.

DBaltich wrote:
First, if option a, b, and c are evil to different levels then how can our choice of that option glorify God, evil may have stages but at the end of the day it is still evil, and therefore does not glorify God

This one confused someone else earlier in the thread also. What's happening here is that you're mixing categories. What I'm talking about is choosing the "less evil" candidate, not making a "less evil" choice.
And since there is no perfect candidate to vote for--and even not voting helps one of these imperfect people gain office--we really have no choice but to back someone imperfect.
Ergo, less imperfect is better than more imperfect.

But even if we suppose we're talking about more or less evil choices, it doesn't follow that a more evil choice is better than a less evil one when no perfect choice is possible.

An analogy may help. In the essay I used a burning building analogy.
A variation--this one, a moral dilemma: suppose you only have time to rescue one person from a burning building. Or maybe you don't know that, but it's likely you will not be able to save all of the three stranded inside. One of them is an elderly man with a terminal brain tumor (you had a chat w/him earlier in the lobby). Another is a mother with two small children already outside crying for her. The third is a guy you just realized is on a wanted poster at the post office. So whom do you rescue?
a. You could do nothing. Obviously not right.
b. You could save the crook first. Doesn't seem prudent.
c. You could save the terminal cancer patient. Also doesn't seem prudent.
d. You could get the mom out.

No matter which choice you make, you're leaving someone behind.
Is it accurate to characterize the wisest and kindest choice in a situation as "lesser evil but still evil so not glorifying to God"?
I think not. Life does not present us with many purely good choices.

But I'm probably not saying it quite right. It's doubtful that a choice that falls short of an imaginary ideal is "evil" at all. We are not judged by imaginary ideals but by real possibilities.
If I cannot vote for a perfect man (because he is not running) my act in voting for a less than perfect man is not "less evil." It just isn't evil.

Quote:
Second, following the lesser of two evils logic and lining it up with the sovernty of God, if God has already appointed who will be elected shouldnt we vote for the one who we will win the election regardless of their level of evil?

I don't understand what you're asking with this one.
We know that God sovereignly uses secondary causes and that people are responsible to do right... so we don't get to say whatever will be will be so what I do has no impact on the outcome.
But I'm not sure if that answers your question.

Quote:
Third if I have the freedom to write in a candidate that has no chance to win but is a choice worthy to glorify God why not write them in.

Well, people are free to do that. I've argued that actual results are often an essential factor in the morality/rightness/God-glorifyingness of an act. it's in the essay. Unless we're prepared to say "results are always irrelevant," we have to grant that sometimes they are not.
And "always irrelevant" is--well, nobody lives that way. We accept the moral significance of results in thousands of little ways every day.
If I think someone looks ridiculous, I'm not evil for thinking so. But it would be wrong for me to say what I'm thinking if it causes only hurt. Results matter.

Thanks for your patience, i

Thanks for your patience, i have been really working thru this issue over the last few years and appreciate being able to bounce ideas of other men. I am not against voting for imp[erfect men but I do think we have a responsibilty according to Eph 5 to stand against any form of evil in this world, both great and small, and I do not believe theat God judges our choice on if that choice wins, He bases His judgment of our choice on if it lines up with Eph 5. For example if option a, b, and c all are ok with abortion, but in everything else option c is a solid canidate accordingto the lesser of two evils theory i shold vote for c, thus violating Gods view on the sanctity of life. As to your moral delema it does not match what we are talking about, I have a God given freedom to choose based on Scripture and guiadnce from God as to which choice will best glorify God. I can vote for whose on the ballot or if all canidates are rotten I can write in a choice that glorifies God. My issue is not that we vote for imperfect people, but that we should never choose evil over good even if the individual can not win. (I Cor10:31)

Choosing Evil over Good

How much evil does it take to be categorized as evil, and how much good to be categorized as good? As previously stated on this thread, no one is totally good but Jesus, so every person you vote for can be correctly categorized as evil. Understanding this reality, we always vote for the lesser of two (or more) evils whenever we vote. Either you refuse to vote for "evil" by refusing to vote at all, or you cast your vote for the lesser of two evils. It is unavoidable in a fallen world.

Who to vote for will always be a challenge for Christians who take their faith seriously, and understand they will give account to God for their choices. Thanks again, Aaron, for helping us work through a difficult subject. May God grant each of us Divine guidance as we seek it from Him.

G. N. Barkman


▴ Top of page

Help keep SI’s server humming. A few bucks makes a difference.