Dear Posterity,
As a Christian woman who has no issue voting for a morally-questionable—or even deplorable—candidate in any given election, I find myself typically politically ostracized by two mainstream camps: 1. Christian conservatives, who believe they have a moral responsibility to cast their vote for the most pious candidate, and 2. Leftists, who believe the candidate for whom I vote is a comprehensive-list-of-expletives. Is it possible to reconcile the two?
I recently received the following question on social media striking at the heart of this very issue:
“What about your Christian values? He [the candidate] is probably one of the vilest, immoral, unchristian, unethical people I have ever had to hear about, and you preach holiness, yet you can set aside your morals to vote for the said person? I was just wondering how you can look past that?”
Fully aware of the current bifurcation (“either-or”) fallacy that has comfortably couched itself throughout today’s discourse, I believe it’s important to sidestep this pitfall, which is a poor excuse for thinking. This fallacy oversimplifies the choices by presenting a false dilemma: you must believe either this or that. In the above example, the only option presented is that Christians should not/cannot vote for a distasteful candidate.
Is it possible to be a Christian and vote for a morally-questionable candidate, as my social media acquaintance inquisitively decried? Or is it mutually exclusive?
I believe Cicero captured the sentiment perfectly when he said it is impossible to be a public man and a good man at the same time. The other side of this statement asks the question: why do we vote for anybody? Why do we employ a president? To be the moral leader of the country? No. That is the role of pastors, Christians, and the church. We employ the president to be a leader in the civil sphere and to protect our country from the dangers at large. Therefore, the president’s role does not require moral perfection. That is certainly the goal (and encouraged), but not required.
Would you vote for someone who does not share your same food preferences, faith, or hobbies? If yes, then it is only a matter of degrees in how much you can accept. It is possible for someone to have a lack of personal morals but simultaneously be an effective public leader…our country is riddled with a long history of these types of presidents. They, of course, are not the first choice, but they are a choice nonetheless. Therefore, we should look to policies—not personal failures—when considering our candidates. If we don’t, we’ll never cast a vote.
A second explanation for how a Christian can vote for a morally-questionable candidate is the “strange bedfellows” concept. For example, Catholics partnered with Protestants to fight abortion, when hitherto they had been staunch enemies (just look at the contentious nature of JFK’s election, the first Catholic president in U.S. history) as a result to America’s strong aversion to any whiff of tyranny by the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church, each with a long trail of abuses (the Protestant Reformation led by Martin Luther was the cause for the split in the first place) in its history.
What brought them together? The art of finding a common enemy. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” suggests the old proverb. In this case, if one candidate’s ascension to the presidency means another’s decline, it can be motivation for voting in a particular way. To bridge a gap with your own opponent is called Rogerian Rhetoric, (or, if you’re a purist, warmed-over Aristotelian rhetoric), and it’s very effective.
At the same time, we can’t help but look around and wonder, “This is the best we’ve got? How does this continue to happen every four years?” When we consider that political aspirations are a sordid cesspool of misguided ambition, we can understand why there is such a dearth of people with integrity: heavy-laden with every less-than-ideal behavior imaginable (petty games, personal vendettas, pride, etc.), the political environment repels individuals with a strong character—but not always.
Ultimately, while a morally-questionable candidate has my vote, Christ still has my heart.
With the greatest esteem and respect,
