The first step in my argument is to address just what I hold to be the purpose of post-primary voting. Many people, including individuals whom I know and respect, believe that we should vote for the person who most closely aligns with our values. But this is not always so. If voting equals support for the person most closely aligned with our values, then we should not feel confined to voting within the two-party majority. The problem is, why limit your selection to the people listed on the ballot? Is not the person most closely aligned with your values you yourself? It seems that this view would at the very least allow, if not compel, people to write in themselves (or at the very least their best friends) at the voters block. Take care not to misunderstand here, for values is still a vital consideration. However, it is not the only consideration.
In addition
to considering the candidates’ values (such as ethical theory, political
philosophy, voting record, religion, etc.), the other main quality to consider
is electability. In my estimation, this is the most important principle of
major voting decisions. The reason for this is simple: if we assume that all
candidates are imperfect (a safe assumption, that), I am most concerned that
my vote represent one less vote for the candidate whom I believe to have a real
chance to do the most damage to the country. In other words, we should vote
against the greatest of the evils. After the primaries, according to this view,
voters have the responsibility to find out who is the most dangerous of the
frontrunners, and do everything in our power to ensure that the worst of the
lot does not get elected. This requires a very different approach to the vote.
It requires that we not view a vote as an endorsement, as a claim to identify
with a certain candidate, nor as even a vote for. Rather, it is a strategic vote against. A vote, in this view, is a strategic move to ensure the
preservation of our country. In the
two-party system, the only way to take votes away from the worst candidate is
to vote for the other major contender. Thus, to those who hold to this view, a
vote for a conservative third-party candidate is, in fact, a vote taken away
from the Republican candidate, and therefore, increases the gap between the
Republican and the Democrat candidates. This is how voters of this mindset can,
in good conscience, say that a vote for a conservative third-party candidate is
a vote for the Democrat (in this case, Obama).
The next task becomes to determine who is, in fact, the worst candidate.
This season, we have a major candidate (Obama) who poses a direct threat to our
Constitutional system as we know it (my purpose is not to convince the reader
of this here—the evidence is all around for those who care to responsibly
research), and the other major candidate (Romney) represents a religious group-- theologically a cult-- which is fundamentally opposed to historic Christian
orthodoxy. However, Romney does still believe (generally) in the founding
political principles of this nation. What is a politically conservative
Christian to do? Are we not to oppose all perversions of the faith? Yes, the
Christian should of course be primarily concerned with preserving and defending
historic, biblical Christianity. However, without the religious freedom
provided by our Constitutional system, the defense of the faith becomes
exponentially more difficult. Moreover, the role of politicians is to protect
and uphold the Constitution, not to defend the Christian faith. The uniqueness
of the Constitution is that it is a Natural Law document. The candidate who
believes that all rights come from God, not from the almighty State, is going
to be more predisposed to limit the role of the federal government. When rights
are believed to be given by the State, then those
rights can also be revoked by the State. Given these considerations, the
greatest threat to America
is the candidate who believes (at least in practice—deciphered by past speeches
and voting record) that rights come from the State, not from God. That
candidate is Barack Obama. Yes, Mormonism is heretical, and idolizes America and the
Constitution for religious reasons. However, it is better to vote for a
non-Christian who makes the mistake of too much reverence for our Country and
founding documents than a (possible, but unlikely) Christian who wants to
“fundamentally transform America”
and believes the Constitution to be outdated.
So, I am not voting against my conscience. My conscience
tells me to preserve the American experiment as long as possible, for although ailing, it is America qua
America
that is the last great stronghold of religious freedom, justice, and economic prosperity. A vote for Romney-Ryan is intended to stop the bleeding, and set
us up for greater reform later. A vote for Obama—whether directly or
indirectly—is a vote to pull life support, and we may not have the chance to
reform later. Therefore, I voted strategically for Romney, even though I do not
endorse him politically or religiously. And given the reasons
discussed, I am not compromising my values by so doing.
