It began with the one and only @5stringtex (aka Jeff). He just had to go and recommend us some podcasts. This free-will thinker's podcast was among them. I was excited to find it at first. It turns out the dude just got his Ph.D. in matters related to free-will, his podcast has an episode where he is sympathetic to anarchy, AND he is conservative. This was especially cool because according to our friend Nathan, conservative-anarchy combinations are not possible. Nathan must travel in strange circles, as I see conservative ancaps all the time. Then again, I see elves all the time. Maybe I travel in strange circles.
Anyway, I largely agree with the free-will thinker, but he had to go and drop some lines claiming Christians (in the US) should not vote for third-party candidates. In this he borrows from the William Lane Craig, quoting him thusly: “… anyone who votes for a third-party candidate who has no realistic chance of winning is guilty of a dereliction of duty.” After I read that, there was so going to be words.
Words
Some elaboration on that quote’s context is in order. First, Craig’s primary interest here is the advancement of biblical values in the public square. He is not voting Trump for the personality. Furthermore, he is mostly concerned about Christians leaving an important decisions to others, about poor influence-stewardship. (Maybe we can invent a new vice and call it: po’ flu-stew!) (No? Ok.)
Finally, Craig didn’t actually say that. Many have misquoted him so, but it’s not quite right. Under the ellipses, it turns out that Craig qualified his remark. He expressed hesitancy in admitting to a mere inclination. Specifically, he said, “I must confess, Ken, that I am inclined to think that anyone who votes for a third-party candidate . . .” and so on. (Yeah, it sounds stronger with the ellipses, and I’m not saying the difference is intentional, but c’mon!) With three concerns, I commend Craig’s slight agnosticism on this point.
Concern 1: It’s not clear that Craig is right.
First, the fear of man is a snare, and the parties know the people are hooked. The custom of not voting third-party has taught the main parties that they only need to run the least horrible option to win. Unsurprisingly, candidates have worsened until the current president is only in power because he ran against the worst candidate in American history. So, the fear of voting third-party gives the main parties such a loose leash that they all but “determine who our leaders will be.”[1] But, if enough people vote for, say, an old school conservative like Ron Paul, the Republicans may take note. (Demand, meet supply.) If you really want to choose your candidates, vote third-party, vote your conscience.
Second, there is a time for every purpose, even for Christians to invest their votes. Craig’s view depends on a clear preference being evident among the candidates, but should a Republican candidate be practically as bad as a Democrat in terms of advancing biblical values, it seems the Christian is not compelled to vote for one over the other. In fact, if he does not vote third party, he might actually fail to steward well his opportunity to invest in better candidates. Whether one thinks Americans are close to that point in the current presidential race or not depends a great deal on one’s social theory, views on abortion, and hatred of war, but either way, Craig’s inclination depends on there being a clear preference between the two candidates, and this is not going be the case in every race this year. There aren’t even two candidates in every race.
Third, the claim that Christians voting third-party are neglecting a duty to wield influence, well it forgets a lot. For example, it forgets about red states. A Christian could vote for Mickey Mouse in a red state, and it would have zero effect on the electoral college and thus the outcome. The state is voting red regardless of that Christian's vote. Not much influence. Instead of voting Mickey Mouse, the Christian could give their conscience a break and invest their vote. It may be the only influence they really have.
Fourth, the po' flu-stew claim also forgets about oaths. Some people have taken an oath to protect the constitution. They may not be free to positively support the lesser of two underminings of the constitution. They may be required to vote Constitution Party if they vote at all. In my experience, such oaths were to protect kings. Those who had taken one were to stand with their king especially in unlikely odds. Joining the least threatening of the king’s enemies in their attack would have been thought such a foolish act of cowardice as to make their eventual death a welcome mercy on their soul. Ultimately, these Christians may be duty-bound to vote third-party, to write someone in, or to not vote at all. If so, then they are not forsaking duty but fulfilling it. So it seems Craig’s inclination may be mistaken yet again, and so I recommend his measure agnosticism yet again.
Fifth, someone once said that voting was one of the lowest means of activism, second only to participating in a political poll. If this is even partly true, then perhaps it is better for the voter to invest their vote with a clean conscience and then to get busy making real change with better resources. This seems applicable to that voter mentioned above, the one with two horrible candidates, in a non-swing state, having taken an oath to protect the constitution. For that person, it is less clear that God has much of a preference, let alone if his investing his vote is a dereliction of duty, and so I commend Craig’s- you know what I’m going to say here.
Concern 2: The principle of the thing.
A few other things bother me. First, there seems to be something profoundly wrong in advocating what you gravely detest. (Duh. Right?) This is a fundamental principle to me, but also there’s something unhealthy in acting against principle, in voting for someone you don’t favor, someone you find somewhat repulsive. In that respect, it seems somewhat wrong too, and the encouraging of others to do something that is bad for their hearts bothers me. I get that there are ethical nuances involved. Still, just as policy comes before personality, so principle comes before pragmatics, and voting against one's beliefs out of fear of consequences is the exact opposite of that. There is an invisible message on every ballot that reads: “Do it, or else.”[2] Personally, I admire more the man who stands on principle and shouts, “Do your worst for I will do mine!” than the one with an argument for saying, “Ok.”
Per Martkn Luther, to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. If a Christian being compelled by conscience can’t vote R or D, then isn't it better that they just stay at home or that they vote third-party? And, who would tell him to vote contrary to his conscience? For those who wouldn’t, yep, I recommend Craig’s measure of agnosticism on this matter.
If it is better to vote for what one truly believes (more righteous, more principled, more healthy) than it is to put your hand to some evil out of fear of a worse one, then Craig’s inclination is false. And, it may well be that it is truly better to vote for what one believes, so it is not clear that Craig’s inclination is correct.
Concern 3: Pragmatics of Principle.
Let’s grant for the sake of argument, that it is better to vote for what one truly believes. Then what can we say? Positively, there is power in principle, in sticking by your guns, standing your ground, and living in truth. The Bible says God keeps the way of the righteous, that we are, in all our ways (even in voting) to honor God and that he will make our paths straight. Besides, terrans, what would your Vaclav Havel say about those who vote against their consciences? Would he say that they had to? that they were otherwise powerless against the state’s evil? or perhaps that they were complicit with their compromise?
But so what if being faithful and trusting in God, did lead into a storm? Are we willing to say, “Though he slay me I will trust in him?” That “He gives and takes away?” Or would we be quick to call a siren’s call our duty? If God intends a man to refuse the state’s deal, the deal of a decrease in the violation he and his children's rights if he just plays along, then he should refuse, and pray, come what may.
My Take-away
All this said, I like Dr. Craig’s work and his style. The free-thinker, Dr. Tim Stratton, seems cool too, for a bald guy. He ends his post with a humble and encouraging note saying that he is not trying to settle the debate, that he's just trying to inform others of his sense of things. It's hard to fault that. (So am I.) In fact, while I understand this particular objection to third-party voting, I also commend and recommend Craig’s caution about it. Now, to read Stratton’s book so I can recommend it too.[3]
1. Given these considerations, if we also grant a real concern about the deepstate gaming the system, then the main-party voter chooses their own candidate even less. The conscientious voter, however, would not play in their hands and would resist such tyrannical manipulation.
2. Now, the objector may say that just as the perfect is the enemy of the good, the good is the enemy of the better and that all they are doing is voting for better. Better is not a bad thing to vote for, but their vote isn’t “let’s slaughter less innocents,” but rather “lets slaughter these innocents” (overseas) That seems like a bad vote, even if it happens to be fewer right now. That makes a difference to me especially because there are more effective ways to advocate for the innocents at home than voting R.
3. Actually, I have a part two to this post on the way. I may have to get to that first. Dang it. EDIT: Part two has arrived!
