This election's choice: Romney, third-party (=Obama), or don't vote (=Obama)?

Preface: the original version of this post helped save some people from making a horrible mistake in the last Presidential election. This election is even more crucial. Barack Obama has harmed, damaged, weakened this country for four years. Four more will bring damage we can only imagine. Much is at stake. Seeing so many good folks swayed by such foolish reasoning (or non-reasoning), I wanted to help if possible. So I have re-written and adapted the original post for this election.

---

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

This time, aware that blacks vote Democrat at a staggering rate, some black pastors are threatening not to vote at all — in other words, not supporting Obama openly, but not voting for Romney, either. Others are unhappy with Obama but non-committal, and echo the reservations of Democrats.

My voting history is varied. First Presidential vote was for a "Christian" Democrat. Since then, I've never done a protest non-vote, but I have voted third-party in the distant past. Years ago, when the contemptible and contemptuous Pete Wilson ran for re-election as governor of California, I think I voted Constitution Party (or whatever it's called in Cali). 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 Christian minds and souls entirely, so we don't enable the party that has adopted Romans 1:18-32 as its official platform. Rather, we go third-party "to send a message," or "to vote our conscience."

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, playing George Michael on the stereo, smoking dope and drinking hard liquor in their tie-dye T-shirts all the way. The GOP is doing the exact same, but at 140mph with a Bible (still shrink-wrapped) and a hymnal 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 entirely, right away. Or they'll 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 end government schools. No more foreign aid, period. No illegals, period. Barbwire, guns and slavering dogs at the border.

We like that straight-talk. We're tired of that incrementalism that is glacially slow to the point of invisibility. So we go for the guy who says, "I promise that 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 there requires a thousand tiny turns, takes a lot of hard work and persuasion, and can't be done by simple fiat. So be patient and work with me."

So... what's wrong with going for Captain America?

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 Christians say this. Don't they have Bibles? They're supposed to. Don't their Bibles have Romans 3:23 and 7:14-25 and James 3:2a in them? Do those verses mean anything anymore? Child, 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 at best a redeemed and finite sinner. 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. You must never make this argument.
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. Barry absolutely will move the ball far in the wrong direction. Mitch 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 huge net move in the wrong direction. The third, Trevor? He claims that he will instantly make a touchdown. But there is one big problem: Trevor does not actually belong to either team on the field. So Trevor must score this promised touchdown in spite of three fatal roadblocks: (A) every player on the field will be trying to take Trevor down; and (B) no player on the field will run defense for Trevor; and (C) most of the people in the stands will boo and throw things at Trevor  So in the end, he will accomplish nothing, because this is a Republic and not a dictatorship.
3. In fact, all third-party candidates will accomplish NOTHING of what they promise. Why not? Well, for starters, there are two kinds of non-comatose people in the world: (1) those who think a third-party candidate has any realistic chance of winning the election, and (2) rational people. Look, here's your cup of coffee; now listen: 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. You know American civics at all? You know what that means? That means: Nobody will present their legislation. Nobody will craft their bills. Nobody will argue for them. Nobody will in either house of Congress will vote for them. They'd have to be dictators or tyrants.
4. All third-party candidates are immature, and/or they are fools, and/or they are liars. Isn't that a minus? Isn't that a disqualifier? These are nothing if not fatal flaws in leadership qualities. How can I support this claim? Because there are only two possibilities. First: these poseurs know they cannot win, and are misleading and misdirecting their supporters. They are deliberately wasting their supporters' money, and deliberately distracting them from supporting a serious player. These are, to speak mildly, not admirable qualities. The second (and only other) possibility is that they do not know that they cannot win. If that is the case, they are hopelessly out-of-touch fools who are unfit to lead and undeserving of support. Let's be specific. In this election, third-party fakes know that the two possible candidates differ very sharply on the issue of abortion. Barack Obama is a pro-abortion extremist who has aggressively used his office to promote the abortion culture. Given another term, he will appoint viciously pro-abortion Supreme Court Justices for life. Mitt Romney has the support of leading pro-life activists and organizations, and picked 100% pro-life Paul Ryan as his running mate. So followers who also oppose abortion would naturally vote for Mitt Romney if they had only two choices. But, recklessly and egomaniacally, third-party peacocks 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 (Mitt Romney), and turn it into at best an empty gesture — which benefits Barack Obama, the candidate who adores abortion and views his grandchildren as "punishments." Thus third-party candidates and their supporters further the cause of abortion — which they (supposedly) abhor. So they actually help score a touchdown for the pro-abortion 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, even more so than 2008. One candidate, Mitt Romney, is a pro-life convert — which we like and want to encourage, right? — and he picked an even more ardently and winsomely pro-life running-mate. The other, Barack Obama, never met an unborn child he wouldn't just as soon see dead, and that even in the most gruesome way imaginable. Obama thinks spreading abortion is the most important thing he can do. As a Christian, I agree with the pro-life position, and I abominate Obama's position. If I do not actively help the one viable pro-life ticket, I help the other pro-abortion ticket. It is just as 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, and not the issues that they are failing to support. It's about making themselves feel better about themselves, in the name of "conscience." Me? I'll feel better if I keep that monstrous, pro-infanticide position out of the White House. That suits my conscience just fine. The "message" I want to send is that the abortion issue is critical in a Presidential election. I'll support a man who is less than my ideal, because he's basically on the right side of the life question. Otherwise, if I vote for a non-player the only "message" I send is "Don't worry about me. I'm irrelevant. I won't help the pro-lifer, and I won't hinder the pro-deather. Ignore me."
6. As the 2008 election already did, this election will have a huge impact on the state of abortion law. As has been richly documented, Obama is the most viciously merciless and doctrinaire President 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 continue to 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 Mitt Romney, you are helping Barack Obama and his abortion agenda.

So what about not voting?

Of course, as always, I'll be dainty, nuanced, helpful and layered about this.

Psych! I'm still me. If you wanted "dainty," you'd be reading someone who only types with 8 fingers. So here we go:

As I've said, I have no respect for the "just don't vote" 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. In the last election, Obama promised to  radicalize abortion in America. He promised to force you and me to pay for the scalpels and poison. He kept those promises. Rewarded (by you!) with a second term, he will do all the further damage he can.

If you've been awake for four years, you know how badly Barack Obama has weakened our country internally and internationally. He has literally bowed to foreign dictators and enemies, and ideologically bowed to the anti-American radicals who taught him how to think and feel.

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


So 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 when marriage was just between one man and one woman, and pastors could choose who to marry and who not to marry without being destroyed by lawsuits. Tell us when Islamic law wasn't enshrined in American law. Tell us when our enemies feared us and our friends loved us and could trust us. Tell us about those times, Grandpa."

And then picture the wrenching nausea you feel when they ask, "And tell us again why you helped re-elect the man who changed all that, when you had the chance to stop him, Grandpa."

If the math of this simple truth is a challenge for you, let Frank Turk help.

"But I'm voting my conscience!" Some naive and ill-taught Christians find themselves unable to offer one rational counter to anything we've said. So they plan the "conscience" card. Refusing to vote for Barack Obama's one viable opponent, the one man who might prevent a second term, would be against their conscience.

Is that a legitimate reason?

First, we have to define "conscience." That isn't as easy as we think. But my try would be: conscience is the intellectual faculty of judging right from wrong. It may be well-informed or misinformed, and thus strong or weak, respectively.

Second, we need to flesh that out. "Conscience" is not a Biblical code word for "reason to do something foolish with God's approval." That is, God holds us accountable for making intelligent decisions that take all the facts into consideration (Prov. 11:14; 13:10; 15:22; 16:1, 3, 9; 19:20-21; 24:6). It is foolish and wicked to refuse to do so.

If you have a conscience that is OK with being foolish and wicked, you need to educate your conscience. Not slavishly obey it instead of the word of God.

If your conscience is OK with refusing to do all you morally and legally can to prevent a second Obama term, you need to educate your conscience. Not slavishly obey it instead of wisely applying the word of God.

"Conscience" is not a divine excuse for refusing to think and act wisely. Abused this way, it's the non-Charismatic's "God-told-me" card, and it should be rejected and abandoned.

"But I'm not convinced about how pro-life Romney is!"

I'll be honest: I don't know, either. So let's deal with what we do know.

1. We know that, of all the folks he could have chosen, Romney chose a VP with an outspoken and 100% pro-life record.
2. We know that Planned Parenthood loves abortion, loves Obama, hates Romney.
3. We know that he's convinced activist Gary Bauer.
4. We know that Romney is supported by The Right to Life of Michigan Political Action Committee, the Susan B. Anthony list, National Right to Life, Colorado Citizens for Life, and other groups.

You don't like the exceptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother. I don't like two of those three, either. So supposing Romney succeeds in preventing abortions except for those cases. You do know that that means preventing more than nine out of ten abortions, don't you? Whereas your only other alternative, Barack Obama, favors preventing zero abortions?

Is nine a bigger number than zero?

Christians should at least be able to do that much math.

Look, take even the grimmest view. You say, "I don't believe he's pro-life at all." OK. All those pro-life activists who have devoted their life to this cause are wrong; only you are right. Planned Parenthood is wrong; only you are right. Okay.

So is Paul Ryan pro-life? Clearly he is.

Is it better to have a vocally pro-life vice-president than two aggressively pro-abortion leaders?

Is better, you know, better?

It isn't completely rocket science.

"But he's a Mormon!"

Yep. That stinks. I wish I could vote for a rock-ribbed CalviDispieBaptoGelical. But no, Romney's a Mormon.

But so? Has Romney proposed outlawing monotheism or the Gospel or the Solas? Not that I've heard.

In fact, let's just talk brass tacks: (1) Romney couldn't harm Christians' rights without harming Mormons' rights, and he's unlikely to do that; and (2) President Romney's Mormonism should provide golden opportunities for Christians to explain and present the true saving Gospel of Christ; and (3) the only alternative, President Obama, professes to be a Christian while embracing ideology and values directly in opposition to Christianity, and (4) Obama shows far more concern for the religion of Islam, which is implacably opposed to Christianity.

Electing Romney means, if anything, a target-rich environment for the positively evangelistically-minded Christian. Isn't that a good thing?

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 — Mitt Romney.

I say this particularly to you who live in "battleground" states such as Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania. I'm glad that I'm no longer stuck in California. But even when I was, I took the vote and the statement it makes seriously.

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

I won't allow this meta to go off in a hundred different directions irrelevant to the post.

I won't even bother publishing comments that reflect failure to deal with the post's contents.