Go third-party? Or don't vote?

UPDATE/NOTE: Because of its timeliness, I've decided to keep this "on top" for awhile. Already read it? Check for newer posts under it.

Preface: I mentioned I was thinking of writing about the option of voting third-party. A number took that as a promise, and they have been wanting me to come out with it. So now, here you go: I promise it will be worth at least every penny you paid for it.

Every election cycle Christians declare that they are disgusted with both parties, tired of voting for "the lesser of two evils," and so they're going for some third-party candidate. Or they're so disgusted that they won't vote at all.

I've never done the latter, but have done the former. Years ago, when the contemptible and contemptuous Pete Wilson ran for re-election as governor of California, I believe I voted Constitution Party (or whatever it's called here). That was probably the last time I'll ever go third-party. Why?

Reasons for voting third-party

Many evangelicals feel that we are to the GOP what blacks are to the Democrats. We're the betrayed wife. The party sweet-talks us, then cheats on us. They take us for granted. We haven't lost our minds entirely, so we don't go Democrat and actually oppose every distinctive Biblical value we have. Rather, we go third-party "to send a message."

These people see no difference between the two parties. Republicans haven't stopped abortion. They haven't revolutionized taxes. When the GOP controlled White House and Congress, the performance of Congress was pitiable, and President Bush raised and raised and raised spending. So these folks commonly say that both parties are heading for the cliff. The only difference is the Dems are doing it openly, 150 miles per hour, smoking dope and drinking hard liquor in their tie-dye T-shirts all the way. The GOP is doing the same, but at 140mph with a Bible and a hymnbook and a three-piece suit.

By contrast, the third-parties are pure. They'll eliminate federal taxes altogether, or instantly bring a flat tax. They'll outlaw abortion, right away, or turn it back to the states. They'll do away with all burdensome, freedom-raping regulations. They'll outlaw homosexual marriages. They'll strap a pistol around every law-abiding citizen's waist. They'll empty the jails in favor of restitution. They'll shut down the Dept. of Education, and government schools.

We like that straight-talk, rather than incrementalism that is so glacially slow as to be invisible. So we go for the guy who says, "I will make a touchdown in the first quarter, then we can all go home." We despise the guy who says, "The path from here to their requires a thousand tiny turns, takes a lot of hard work and persuasion, and can't be done by simple fiat."

So... what's wrong with that?

Why a third-party Presidential vote this year is foolish and irresponsible

1. I start with the most popular, and yet sadly most foolish and Biblically absurd argument: "lesser of two evils." It never ceases to astonish me that any Christian who has, and has read, and believes a Bible containing Romans 3:23 and 7:14-25 and James 3:2a finds this a compelling argument. Every vote for a mere son of Adam is a vote for the lesser of two evils. There are no exceptions! It doesn't matter who your candidate is! He is limited intellectually, spiritually, morally, and dynamically. He will not always know the right thing to do nor the right way to do it. Even when he does know, he will not always do it. Even when he tries, he will not always succeed. So if you're going to think this through like a Christian, you must make your decision on some other basis.
2. Next, when I grew up a little, I wrapped my mind around the fact that politics is the art of the possible. It is not a decision about whether to murder someone or not. It is a question of moving the ball in the right direction. So I have three quarterbacks vying for my vote. One absolutely will move the ball far in the wrong direction. Another will move it a bit in the wrong direction, a bit in the right direction, and the net will be a small but significant move towards my goal. Or at the very least prevention of a net move in the wrong direction. The third? He claims that he will instantly make a touchdown. But there is one big problem: he does not actually belong to either team on the field. So he must score this promised touchdown in spite of three fatal roadblocks: (A) every player on the field will be trying to take him down; and (B) no player on the field will run defense for him; and (C) most of the people in the stands will boo and throw things at him. So in the end, he will accomplish nothing.
3. In fact, all third-party candidates will accomplish NOTHING of what they promise. Why not? Well, for starters, there are two people in the world: those who think a third-party candidate has any realistic chance of winning the election, and sane people. You can't keep any promises if you don't win office, and they can't win! Next, even if that circle could be squared, they would have no constituency in Congress. Nobody to present their legislation. Nobody to craft their bills. Nobody to argue for them. Nobody to vote for them. They'd have to be dictators or tyrants.
4. All third-party candidates are immature, fools, and/or liars. Which, I think, is a minus! At least, it's a fatal flaw in their leadership qualities. How can I make this claim? Because they either know they cannot win and are misleading and misdirecting their supporters and (already!) wasting their money; OR they do not know it, in which case they are hopelessly out-of-touch fools. So they know, for instance, that the two possible candidates differ very sharply on the issue of abortion. They themselves oppose abortion, as does the GOP ticket. So followers who also oppose abortion would naturally vote for the GOP candidate if they had only two choices. But, wrecklessly and egomaniacally, they mislead their followers into thinking that there is a viable third choice. They take the vote that would naturally go to the one pro-life candidate, and turn it into an empty gesture — which benefits the candidate who adores abortion, which they (supposedly) abhor. So they actually help score a touchdown for the other side. Brilliant. Idiots.
5. I'm a grownup. I want to make a difference, not a gesture (i.e. "sending a message"). I don't know if there has ever been a more stark nor consequential choice in my lifetime. One candidate has a sterling pro-life voting record, and an even more persuasively pro-life running-mate. The other never met an unborn child he wouldn't just as soon see dead, and even in the most gruesome way imaginable. He thinks spreading abortion is the most important thing he can do. I agree with the former's position, and as a Christian I abominate the latter's. If I do not help the former, I help the latter. Simple as that. I've read hundreds of words from third-partyers. While I share many of their goals, I really think it's all about them. It's about making themselves feel better. Me? I'll feel better if I keep that monstrous, pro-infanticide position out of the White House. That suits my conscience just fine. And what about "sending a message"? I'm sending the message that the abortion issue is critical in a Presidential election. I'll support a man who is less than my ideal, because he's on the right side of the life question. Otherwise, if I vote for a non-player the only "message" I send is "I'm irrelevant. I won't help the pro-lifer, and I won't hinder the pro-deather. Ignore me."
   
6. This election will have a huge impact on the state of abortion law. As I've documented repeatedly, Obama is the most viciously merciless and doctrinaire Presidential candidate in history, when it comes to abortion. We've made progress in abortion over the years, and it's made a difference. Thanks to President Bush's appointments, some restrictions have squeaked by the Supreme Court. Now there are 2-3 justices who are about 900 years old who are holding on for a liberal president. You let Obama load the SC and other benches, and you will set the pro-life cause back legally for years. You will hurt every aspect of its public face. And, to be blunt, if you do not vote for John McCain, you are helping Barack Obama.

So what about not voting?

As I've said, I have no respect for this position whatever. I think it is self-indulgent, irresponsible, and contemptible. I think you're like a person who watches his wife get beaten up, making smug little jokes about how hard it is to pick sides in such conflicts.

This election provides stark choices. If Obama wins, he has promised that he will radicalize abortion in America. He will force you and me to pay for the scalpels and poison. He will tilt us off instantly in the direction of European socialism, or far worse.

How much worse? We don't know. He won't tell us. His records are hidden, questions are not answered. Arrogantly, Obama says he'll hold a press conference... Wednesday.

But we do know Obama allies himself with terrorists, Marxists, racists. That's his posse. That's the sauce in which he has marinated his soul. And that's what he brings to the White House.

So you make your cute, smug little "stand" of not-standing. You sit at the back of the class, sniggering, mocking the teacher, and passing notes.

Imagine yourself talking to your grandchildren in 10, 20 years.

"Grandpa, tell us again about when people could offer help and literature in front of abortion clinics. Tell us again about when crisis pregancy centers weren't against the law. Tell us about when preachers could preach against abortion and homosexuality without being thrown in prison for 'hate crimes.' Tell us about when you could own our own handgun to protect your family. Tell us when some states had some laws making it harder to kill babies. Tell us when there used to be that place called the Internet, where you could network, and speak freely and internationally. Tell us about when America wasn't under international law and international courts. Tell us about those times, Grandpa."

And then picture the wrenching nausea you feel when they ask, "And tell us again why you didn't do anything to stop it when you had the chance, Grandpa."

In closing

You want to make a statement? Buy a sign. Get a blog.

You want to make a difference? Vote for the only candidate with any possibility of making any positive difference in any of the categories I've outlined. That would be — much as I regret to have to say it — John McCain.

I say this particularly to you who live in "battleground" states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania. I'm stuck in California. My wife and I grimly joke that the two people in line behind us — no matter who they are — cancel out our vote; then the two behind them double that.

But if you're in a contested state, you especially matter. Wake up. This election really matters. Don't make a fantasy-gesture that leaves us with a reality-nightmare.

Rules for the meta

You're my guests, and there are house-rules. In addition to the ones posted:

I won't allow this meta to go off in a hundred different directions irrelevant to the post. Try it, and you may get as much as one curt response; then you're done.

I also won't allow our trolls to repeat long-refuted nonsense. If a troll throws up something he's already had answered a half-dozen times ("But Sarah Palin is so unqualified!"; "But Obama isn't really pro-abortion!"), or challenges some statement that's been documented a dozen times in my daily posts, he can expect his post to disappear, and perhaps his right to post at all along with it.