Making the rounds in several of my circles this week is Wayne Grudem’s recent article “Why Voting for Donald Trump is a Morally Good Choice.” I don’t know Dr. Grudem, but I know his theological work well and believe him to be a great servant of God and a wise, Biblical thinker. His opinion on this year’s presidential election is one I’ve heard from others over the last six months, but I find myself disagreeing with it strongly enough to offer an alternative point of view.

It’s clear that Dr. Grudem is writing to people like me:

Some Christian friends tell me they can’t in good conscience vote for Donald Trump…They recommend voting for a third-party or write-in candidate. As a professor who has taught Christian ethics for 39 years, I think their analysis is incorrect…

That describes me pretty well. I cannot vote for Trump and will be voting for a third-party candidate as a matter of conscience. I don’t believe this is the only morally valid option in the 2016 election, but I believe it is one such option and the one that makes the most sense to me. 

Dr. Grudem continues: 

I think voting for Trump is a morally good choice because he will do more good for the nation than his opponent. I do not think Trump is an “evil candidate,” but rather a good candidate with flaws.

While acknolwedging that Trump is “egotistical, bombastic, and brash,” and that “He insults people,” Dr. Grudem concludes that Trump “is not racist or anti-(legal) immigrant or anti-Semitic or misogynistic.” He also asserts that opinions to the contrary have been influenced by “unjust magnifications by a hostile press exaggerating some careless statements he has made.”

His rationale for calling Trump a “good candidate” is that Trump’s policies will do more good for the nation than would  Clinton’s. Here is how I would outline his argument:

1. Hilary Clinton is really, really bad (like, evil bad);
2. Trump is not really that bad;
3. Trump and Clinton are the only actual choices in this election;
4. Trump will appoint better Surpreme Court Justices than Clinton;
5. Voting against Clinton is a moral imperative. 

While there are brief mentions of other concerns and considerations, Dr. Grudem basically sticks to the common argument I hear made regularly to those, especially Christians, who claim to be unable to vote for Trump. 

If this election is close (which seems likely), then if someone votes for a write-in candidate instead of voting for Trump, this action will directly help Hillary Clinton, because she will need one less vote to win. Therefore the question that Christians should ask is this: Can I in good conscience act in a way that helps a liberal like Hillary Clinton win the presidency?

and

But the most likely result of not voting for Trump is that you will be abandoning thousands of unborn babies who will be put to death under Hillary Clinton’s Supreme Court, thousands of Christians who will be excluded from their lifelong occupations such as having just, thousands of the poor who will never again be able to find high-paying jobs in an economy crushed by government hostility toward business, thousands of inner-city children who will never be able to get a good education, thousands of the sick and elderly who will never get adequate medical treatment when the government is the nation’s only healthcare provider, thousands of people who will be killed by an unchecked ISIS, and millions of Jews in Israel who will find themselves alone and surrounded by hostile enemies. And you will be contributing to a permanent loss of the American system of government due to a final victory of unaccountable judicial tyranny.  

I mentioned above that refusing to vote for Trump is, in my view, one of the morally valid options in this election. I think that Dr. Grudem’s position is also morally valid, even though he does not believe the same to be true of mine (see the quote directly above). If your conscience is burdened with an “anyone but Hilary” point of view and the opinion that this election is a significant one in the history of our country, I understand why the above argument would be persuasive and I have no beef with your Election Day plans.

What I’m offering in this article is simply an alternative point of view, a different reading of the data, and a different choice for Election Day. While I respect Dr. Grudem, and the many others who make this argument, I disagree with points 2, 3, 4 and 5. I disagree that “anyone but Hilary” is a helpful point of view. I disagree that this election holds any particular or unique (doomsday?) importance in the history of our country. I’m not arguing that his view or subsequent course of action is immoral, only that it is unhelpful in the long term.

Trump is Bad, not Good.
Dr. Grudem’s defense for calling Trump a good candidate is two-pronged: his character and his policies.

He has raised remarkable children. Many who have known him personally speak highly of his kindness, thoughtfulness, and generosity. But the main reason I call him “a good candidate with flaws” is that I think most of the policies he supports will do the most good for the nation. 

I think Trump’s character is far better than what is portrayed by much current political mud-slinging, and far better than his opponent’s character. 

In a clever rhetorical move, Dr. Grudem goes on the offense with respect to Trump’s character. If you are unable to vote for Trump because of your concerns with his character, Dr. Grudem believes you are guilty of “reductionism – the mistake of reducing every argument to only one factor, when the situation requires that multiple factors be considered.” I suspect that this is why he includes the second prong of his defense – regardless of the quality of his character, his policy positions should also factor in. His attempts to defend Trump’s character sound like talking points from the candidate himself (“People tell me I’m very kind. That I’m the kindest person they’ve ever met.”) and are contrary to everything we’ve seen from the candidate in this election. Also, it’s Dr. Grudem’s point of view which is reductionistic; he’s the one who has from the outset narrowed the possibile options only to voting for Trump or voting for Clinton. 

More than once, Dr. Grudem attempts to defend Trump’s character by blaming the media for painting him in a bad light every time he makes a mistake. As someone who is often guilty of speaking before I think, I greatly appreciate the instinct to consider the worst of Trump’s statements as mistakes that were blurted out and need later to be corrected. Yet considering the volume of data we have on this issue, I find the suggestion that this is the media’s fault very unlikely. The frequency with which these “mistakes” occur gives merit to the argument that the man is temperamentally unfit for the office. The kinds of things Trump says regularly demonstrate contempt for the concepts of goodness, kindness, gentleness and self-control.

“I get called by a guy that can’t buy a pair of pants, I get called names?” – Said of a reporter paralyzed below the waist.

“How stupid are the people of Iowa.” – When shown a poll that had Ben Carson in the lead.

“Look at that face. Would anyone vote for that?” – Said of primary opponent Carly Fiorina.

“You know, it really doesn’t matter what they write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.”

“If Hilary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?”

“Torture works. OK, folks? You know, I have these guys—”Torture doesn’t work!”—believe me, it works. And waterboarding is your minor form. Some people say it’s not actually torture. Let’s assume it is. But they asked me the question: What do you think of waterboarding? Absolutely fine. But we should go much stronger than waterboarding.” – Trump on torture, an example of a statement that he later retracted, kind of.

I understand that we all say things we shouldn’t say. I know how terrible I’d look if you took all the worst of my own quotations and put them in a list together for everyone to see. And yet, these types of statements are so common from Trump I don’t see how we can deny they are an accurate reflection of the man’s character. Also, most of these are from this particular election cycle, not old stuff I had to dig to find.

It’s not just his words, as a bully and serial adulterer there are a litany of actions that also demonste severe issues of character. He is not the kind of man I want my son to observe, admire, or emulate. Reductionist or not, he is not the kind of man that I can support with the most important political tool I have, my vote. I’d also struggle to find the words to explain such a choice to my wife and children.

Trump is not a good candidate with flaws; he’s a bad candidate. The combined testimony of his words and actions absolutely justify the decision to abstain from voting for Trump in this election. Again, it’s not the only moral choice, but it is certainly one of them. One more Trump quote, because, as a Christian, it’s the one that pushed me over the edge several months ago. 

I’m not sure I have ever asked God’s forgiveness. I don’t bring God into that picture.
-Donald Trump, when asked if he had ever sought God’s forgiveness for anything.

Voting Against the Democrats as a Political Strategy -or- Counting on Trump for Policy Victories is a Poor Strategy

While Dr. Grudem briefly mentions several areas of policy where he thinks Trump will be better than Clinton, the bulk of his argument, and especially the emotional appeal, centers around the ability of the president to nominate Supreme Court Justices. 

A President Clinton could possibly nominate three or four justices to the Supreme Court, locking in a far-left activist judiciary for perhaps 30 or more years. Liberal Democrats are now within one Supreme Court justice of their highest goal: gaining permanent control of the nation with a five vote majority on the Supreme Court, and then systematically imposing every liberal policy on the nation not through winning elections but through a relentless parade of one Supreme Court decision after another. The nation would then no longer be ruled by the people and their elected representatives, but by unelected, unaccountable, activist judges.

But if Trump would appoint a conservative replacement for Scalia (as he has promised), and probably one or two other Supreme Court justices, then we could see a 5-4 or even 6-3 majority of conservative justices on the Supreme Court. Such a Supreme Court would finally return control of the nation to the people and their elected representatives, removing it from dictatorial judges who repeatedly make law from the bench.

Unborn children would finally be protected from being killed, and our religious liberty would once again be protected rather than trampled. 

For as long as I have been paying attention to conservative politics, the failsafe rationale for convincing a reluctant conservative to vote for the GOP candidate has been this one. I heard it in 2004 when some conservatives were not excited about giving Bush II a second term. I heard it in 2008 when the GOP nominated a centrist candidate in John McCain. I heard it again in 2012 when the GOP nominated another centrist in Romney.  Now with Trump, the worst GOP nominee of my lifetime, we’re hearing the same thing. Also, in both 2008 and 2012 the “justices” argument was also accompanied by the fearful and insistant claim that the election of this particular democrat was going to bring an end to democracy as we know it.

One of my geekiest hobbies is Supreme Court watching. I read SCOTUSblog almost daily, read nearly all opinions the court produces, and am greatly interested in the ideological makeup of the court. Until the recent death of Antonin Scalia, the court was made up of 2 Regan appointees, 2 Clinton appointees, 3 appointees by Bushes I and II, and two by Obama. That’s five appointed by republicans and 4 by democrats, if you’re counting. Republicans have had the edge in the appointee count and in the court’s ideaology since about the 70s when Nixon appointed several conservative justices. Think about what that means: after about 40 years of having had control of the court the current state of national policy is what we have to show for it. 

Remember that it was a republican president who appointed David Souter, who voted reliabily with the liberals for about 15 years and decided to retire during the presidency of (and thus have his replacement chosen by)  President Obama. Remember that it was a Republican president, or demi-god, who appointed Anthony Kennedy, the deciding vote in most of the cases that keep social conservatives up at night. Remember that it was a republican president who appointed Chief Justice John Roberts, the deciding vote in most of the cases that keep Obamacare alive. 

I care deeply about the issue of abortion and if I had a good reason to believe that a Trump presidency would produce justice and righteousness on that issue it would be a compelling reason to vote for him. That’s why I agree that a vote for Trump with this issue in mind is one of the morally justifiable options for conservatives in this election. It’s not the option I choose because the last 40 years of Republican history have convinced me that this strategy doesn’t work.

Likewise, the other policy issues Dr. Grudem lists where Trump’s (recently stated) views are more appealing than Clinton’s are equally unpersuasive. Again, with a clever rhetorical trick, Dr. Grudem dismisses the idea that candidate Trump might say one thing and President Trump might do another. He provides no evidence for his assertion, but assures us that this never happens.

Still, considering a vote for president a vote between simple, contrasting policy outcomes, is another of the reasonable cases to be made for voting Trump. I don’t find it persuasive because I don’t think it is the political reality in which we live. At least, that’s not how it has worked for my voting lifetime and I struggle to believe why this election is any different. Bush I did give us new taxes, despite his lips and Bush II gave us illegitimate wars (at the very least further destabilizing the Middle East), torture, and mass surveillance. You can try and draw my attention back to Reagan all you want; that was nearly 30 years ago.

An Alternative Strategy

My experience has been that the willingness of conservatives to vote for whatever candidate the GOP runs allows that party to to put “conservative” very low on the list of candidate requirements. I’m talking about social, fiscal, and military conservatism here. The party gave us Bush, and we accepted him. Then McCain. Then Romney. Now Trump. Maybe you like all those guys, but I don’t. And, in my estimation, they’ve gotten progressively worse. I believe this is why the Republicans have not won a presidential election since 2004 and probably will not again. 

There are two political outcomes that I think would be positive for conservatives, and neither are well served by Trump losing a close election rather than a landslide. The first is that the Republican Party would recant of its love affair with centrists and give us a credible conservative option in the next election. I think this outcome is unlikely, frankly, but it’s surely not going to happen if conservatives continue to be willing to vote for centrists and bafoons. 

The second possible outcome is that the two political parties in this country would break wide open into multiple, smaller parties. This system would be similar to what exists in Great Britan, where the parties are smaller and have more focused platforms. It’s much harder to get a majority (good), much harder to get any major legislation passed (good), and requires coalitions to be built among the parties on an issue-by-issue basis rather than by the location of a person’s chair in the legislative chamber (good). I think that the popularity of Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party indicates that their party is ripe for a split as well. 

Imagine a situation where a small groups of arch-conservatives and another small group of arch-liberals combine to have enough votes to prevent proposed mandatory vaccination or anti-homeschooling legislation. Those liberals would need to look elsewhere for help passing the EPA-strengthening ammendment, and they would of course be free to do so. Likewise, the conservatives would get no help from them in tightening abortion legislation, but there may be other parties willing to work with them on those matters.

This is why I think that voting for a third party candidate is one of the morally acceptable options for Christians in 2016. It’s not because I think it’s okay to simply give up on politics ever working again or because I think a defiant finger-flipping vote is a vote well spent. I’m not neieve enough to think that this is a magic pill, easy to accomplish, or guaranteed to work. This could prove to be impossible or it could happen and prove to be ineffective. Nonetheless, I don’t think it’ unreasonable, and certainly not immoral, after 20 years of watching the GOP to think that a change in political strategy is needed. The year that Donald Trump is nominated as the Republican candidate for president seems like a particularly good year to try something else. If we keep doing what we’ve been doing we’re going to keep getting what we’ve been getting, and that’s the most alarming outcome I can imagine.