Perhaps you are one of those people who believe that Romney and Obama actually aren't really that much different and in a sense are part of the same problem, that they could be the same person, or actually controlled by the same organization. So you vote for someone who can't win as a kind of protest. Maybe your idea is that whichever candidate we vote is going to bring us ultimately to the same conclusion and you would like us to get there a little bit faster. I see you as the fatalistic vote. And you're wrong.
As genuine believers, our trust is in the Lord Jesus Christ. We pray for His kingdom to come. We don't depend on government, on our socio-economic level, or on our class as a basis of our satisfaction or fulfillment. No matter who wins, we can thrive. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to have things be the best they can be---remember paragraph one. In Romans 12, Paul wrote, as much as possible live peaceably with all men. That doesn't mean you can live peaceably with all men, but you can as much as possible. Let's as much as possible have a president that thinks like we do.
Only two candidates can win, Obama or Romney. If you do not vote for Romney, you are in fact helping Obama to win the presidency. You know it. You should care.
Even though Romney is not the candidate that we would want, he's enough better than Obama to vote for him, so that Obama might not win. He is better than Obama. They aren't the same candidates.
Let's start with the purpose of government. When God ordained human government in Genesis 9, He set out to protect life. On abortion, Romney isn't enough pro-life, but he's far more pro-life than Obama. Obama is the most anti-life president in the history of the United States. You know that. So if you vote for someone besides Romney, and then Obama wins, then you will take responsibility for the continuation of the most anti-life policies in history. More unborn children will be killed because of those policies. Romney does not support taxpayer funded abortions. Obama does. Romney would oppose third trimester abortions. Obama supports them.
Romans 13 says that government is about rewarding good and punishing evil. In so many more ways Obama is about rewarding evil and punishing good. Obama's taxation is about punishing good, punishing work, punishing production. If you don't vote for Romney, you are voting for an Obama win, which will in fact punish good. You will contribute to that.
Obama rewards homosexual behavior. Romney's not the best on that, but he still supports marriage only between a man and a woman. That's another basic that you would oppose more if you vote for someone besides Romney. That's what I think you will be doing.
Why do you think that gun sales will go up exponentially more if Obama is elected? You know this to be true. Why is it? It's because people will want to get guns before the government will make it more difficult to do so, and, second, it's because people are rightfully more afraid of the country moving faster into a deeply dangerous, chaotic state, in which even food supply would be threatened without protection. Your vote for someone besides Romney will result in a faster loss of gun ownership, in which you will be a greater loss for the protection of the life of your family.
If Obama wins, which he will more likely do so if you vote for someone besides Romney, he will have four more years to appoint Supreme Court justices like Sotomayor and Kagan, perhaps the worst two of the nine presently on the court. You don't want more of the same. You want to avoid that as much as possible. Romney would very likely choose people at least like Scalia or Thomas, strict constructionists. You should want that. We will lose far more God-given rights because of Obama Supreme Court appointments.
I could go on here. Romney won't support government funded contraceptives. Obama will. Romney will be better at shrinking the deficit. Romney will more likely pass conservative legislation passed by a more conservative Congress. Obama will veto it.
When you vote for Romney, you aren't voting for Mormon doctrine. You aren't saying you believe in the Book of Mormon. You aren't saying that you think that Romney is smart for doing so. I don't think Romney is a Mormon because Mormonism makes any sense. He is one because his dad was a Mormon. I believe he decided, probably while he was in France on his mission, that he wasn't going to give up on Mormonism and in so doing invalidate his father's life. He bought in, I believe, at that time. It gives him a sense of continuity. It is a kind of conservatism to him. There may be other reasons why he believes it. None of them are good reasons. However, John Locke wasn't a believer either. Neither was Thomas Jefferson. We're not voting for the leader of a church. We're voting for the President of the Republic, one branch of government. He's not a King. He will, by far, support freedom of religion more than Obama. Understand that. Obama has shown that he doesn't mind the government intruding on the freedom of religion. Romney is far more likely to protect that right and to protect it better.
You're not a dupe if you vote Romney. You are entering it with your eyes open. You know exactly what you are getting. It isn't what you want. But it isn't Obama either. And you have, I believe, a responsibility to help stop Barack Obama from getting another term as president. You will not do that by not voting for Romney. You will be playing right into President Obama's hands. You are making a poor decision.
Do not write in a candidate. Do not vote libertarian. Do not vote American independent. Do not vote Constitutional. Vote for Romney. It's the best opportunity we have for not having Obama. Do not, not vote. Vote. And vote for Romney.
Especially if you live in a swing state, do not vote for anyone but Romney.
25 comments:
Do you really believe Romney will shrink the defecit? Or just slow the rate at which it grows. I have no confidence in either party for getting our debt under control.
Still voting Romney though. Mostly for the reasons you state.
Mr. Brandenburg,
I believe that both parties are less than desirable, but the Republican party is better. Suppose that I would like to see a more conservative and Christian party, whether it were Republican, or a third party. How would I go about encouraging this?
One approach might be to vote third party hoping to gain a high enough percent to pull the Republican policy to the right. I think we saw this to some degree with the high interest in Ron Paul (though he is a Republican). I could vote for a third party with the ultimate hope of supplanting the Republican party. Meanwhile, several intervening elections might be lost to the Democrats.
My second question is when does the distinction between two parties become small enough that we ought to vote for a third party?
Good food for thought. You are making me reconsider whether to vote for a third party. Thanks for the article.
C Long
Hi D4,
I start with shrinking the budget deficit. Yes. I think it will move into the 500 billion dollar Bush range, out of the 1 trillion dollar Obama range, at least headed toward a balanced budget. If Romney doesn't do that, and he keeps it going at an Obama pace, I'd be surprised. It could happen, true, but it surely will happen with Obama---we've seen it. It might not happen with Romney. That's a good enough distinction to me.
Hi C. Long,
I didn't talk about that here, but the time to vote for your third party is in the primaries. You can make your political point in the primaries to send your message to the Republicans. Or at least vote for the most conservative Republican candidate in the primary season. The general election is not a time to do an experiment or a protest. We also don't want to help things get so bad that finally people will "wake up" ("wake up," my words). When it gets that bad, there is nothing to say that "waking up" will mean your ideal candidate.
The distinctions between the parties are large still, in my opinion. If they are both lying and we're headed to one world government under the trilateral commission, well, we're headed there anyway. But between the two parties, we've got collectivist versus individualist, at least. In many ways the American people won't allow a candidate to become more conservative. We need to change the electorate through evangelism, as much as possible.
Thanks for your comment.
A friend pointed me to your well-written, succinct article with a strong conclusion. You voiced many of the points I have tried to make with friends and more - and done it more eloquently than I could have! I intend to pass it on. Thanks!
Tim Anger
Emmaus, PA
Thanks Tim. Good hearing from you.
I think if we as conservatives continue to reward the Republicans with our vote even when they force a progressive candidate upon us then they will never have a reason to give us a true conservative candidate. Also with as many issues as Romney has flipped his position on I am not convinced that he will govern in a fashion anywhere close to conservative or biblical principles. "If you don't vote for Romney, you are voting for an Obama win" please tell me how does that work? does someone go and change my vote if I write in Ron Paul? I for one have to many disagreements with Romney and Ryan to ever consider voting for them so my vote for Ron Paul will not impact there chances of getting elected in any way. I hear this exact same argument every election and if we as conservatives continue to have that mindset we will never change anything! Also your intention may not be to reward Republicans but that is exactly what you are doing. Yes there are differences between Romney and Obama however I truly don't think there is enough difference on the things that matter! They are both Big Government the differences are what brand of big government they are both anti personal liberty. I agree that the local church is the answer to the moral problems in this country. Ron Paul is a born again Christian and is pro liberty which will give the local churches in this nation the most freedom to do there job of reaching the lost.
Hi Jeremy,
You can write in Ron Paul, but he won't win. If he can't win an election in his own party, then he can't win a general election. Ron Paul is right there available for everyone to vote for, and he can't get enough votes in the primary. The only way for that to change is for the electorate to change and it's not getting more Ron Paul like, based on my observation. Since we don't have an electorate that conservative, we need to vote for the better of the two possibilities. If not, you are helping Barack Obama.
There are not enough Ron Paul type conservatives to win a general election at this point. Voting for him will not change that. Your vote for Ron Paul in a general election will be like throwing your vote either into a black hole, a trash compactor, or the dumpster. Worse actually. At least in the trash compactor, Obama isn't president.
If enough people think like you do, Obama will be reelected. You might not think it's your fault, but it partly will be. The only thing you will succeed at is making sure Romney isn't president, but you'll only help Obama become president.
I disagree that Ron Paul didn't win the primary because there aren't enough conservatives to vote for him he lost because the rnc had chosen there man before the primary ever started and they forced him on us. you should do a little research on how Regan lost the republican nomination and then 4 years later became the best president in modern history. Focus on the convention where he lost which is what launched him into the public view. look at the new rule 16 and research what that would have done had it been in place when Regan lost that nomination. The same viewpoints were present then as there are now the Republicans were becoming to progressive and the conservatives had enough that's what led to Regans win. The RNC is corrupt.
Jeremy,
The RNC doesn't choose anyone in the primaries. People do. And they didn't vote for Ron Paul. The idea that the RNC just chooses who will win is not how it actually works. It might be what people say, but it isn't how it actually happens.
Regarding Reagan, there were a lot of good things he did, but he was less conservative than what people selectively remember. He cut taxes, but he didn't cut spending and the deficit went up when he was president because of the spending. Usually it's blamed on the Democrats, but that money couldn't be spent without his signing off on it.
Before voting for Ron Paul, consider that one more leftist on the Supreme Court and International Law--UN treaties--will replace the US Constitution. That means, probably, that the UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child will be decreed by the Supreme Court. That means spanking children could become illegal. Thus, an Obama reelection could make Christian child-rearing, and thus Christianity, illegal. One more leftist on the Court and a "constitutional" right to sodomite marriage, the end of the 2nd Amendment, etc. are also givens.
Consider that before voting third party--unless you are a leftist. if you are a leftist, please vote for the Green party instead of voting for Obama--do to Obama what the Greens did to Gore in Bush-Gore, where the Green party elected Bush by giving him Florida over Gore.
By the way, the Republicans ARE becoming more conservative--they have kicked out a bunch of "moderates" and replaced them with conservatives. The way to move the country to the right is to make the Republicans more conservative by influencing the primaries, etc.
By the way, Ron Paul has said that the abortion pill should not be outlawed, and that the right to life is trumped by "states rights" so that abortion should not be illegal at the federal level. See:
http://prolifeprofiles.com/ron-paul-abortion
I don't always agree with your stands, but this article is spot-on! You made the argument very clear. Thanks!
Everyone,
KJB1611 is Thomas Ross and we didn't even check with each other to see if we thought the same way. And we do! His info are good additions and should be strongly considered.
Anonymous,
Thanks.
Good article. I did not use to think in this matter, but reading my bible, especially the OT and how the Lord God dealt with nations, while Romans 13 summarizes it succienctly in the NT, your vote should always go to the most conservative man that has a chance to actually win the election.
"Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to ANY people"
George
For the Ron Paul & 3rd party voters, it should be pointed out that "hanging chads" were not the deciding factor in the Bush/Gore vote in Florida. Bush only won by 400 & some votes, but I believe it was about 900,000 liberals who voted for Ralph Nader in Florida that ultimately gave the election to Bush. So, those who are conservative & vote a 3rd party candidate in the national election are taking away votes from the more conservative candidate, & in this case that means voting for Obama.
Yes, I, Thomas Ross, am KJB1611. When I'm signed into Google I can post more quickly by just leaving that tag. Otherwise I need to re-type things when I post. I am thus not trying to hide anything from anyone with using the KJB1611 tag, just save time. I even have a birth certificate that proves I'm a US citizen.
I'm Thomas Ross and I approve this message.
Thanks Kent. My best to you and family.
Tim Shawgo and family
Principle vs. Pragmatism
I have been reading this blog now for about five years and I want to say first what I tremendous blessing it has been to me. My understanding of many things has been increased and enhanced because of your writing. I have hardly found the slightest thing that I have disagreed with you on…until now. So, I find it sad that my first time commenting is under these circumstances.
You have written much about pragmatism in the past—how it is a dangerous philosophy, and a humanistic one at that. I have yet to see a pro-Romney argument from a Christian that was not thoroughly pragmatic in philosophy and yours is no different. To be anti-pragmatic, I don’t mean that we should not at all consider the consequences of our decisions, I mean that principles should direct our decisions and nothing should be done that violates Biblical principles, regardless of the perceived results. My concern is not so much that you will be voting for Romney as it is that you are using pragmatic thinking to justify it. This doesn’t seem like you.
Should our vote be based on pragmatism or on the principles of the Word of God? That depends if how we vote is in the category of “that [which] pertains to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3). I think we both believe that it does. And if so, then we know that God has given to us “all things” that pertain to such things. In other words, the Scripture is sufficient to give us the principles that should direct how we should vote. In other words, an argument that defends how we would vote should be derived from Scripture, rather than using a little Scripture to support a position that has already been arrived at through pragmatism. You know this. You should care.
Unprincipled arguments often include many straw men to knock down. For example, I am not aware of anybody who even comes close to thinking that a president should meet the qualifications of a pastor. He should meet the qualifications of a president. And there is a standard for ruling that is a bit higher than “he has to be not quite as evil as the other guy who has a chance.” Another straw man is the idea that this a “protest vote” rather than a principled vote. I am also not aware of anyone of anyone who is avoiding voting for these men with a fatalistic view as their main reason. Over the last eight years I have read a lot of articles by people who planned to vote third party, and every one of them had one main them in common—they were going to base their vote on principle and not pragmatism and leave the results to God. Why not make mention of that rather than using straw men.
Mat
More...
The “Religious Right” uses more double standards than any other position I know. Why was the religion of Barak Obama of such great importance in 2008 (ie. He might be a Muslim; he went to Jeremiah Wright’s church, etc., etc.) But suddenly Romney’s Mormanism is supposed to be a non-issue. Even nominal Protestants were greatly concerned about JFKs Catholicism. But, I guess standards change, right? (See your next article.)
Let’s suppose for a moment here that pragmatism was indeed the way to go when deciding how to vote. If I truly wanted to use that logic, I still would have a hard time finding a compelling reason for voting for Romney. For many, if not all, of us, our vote simply won’t affect the outcome of the election one way or the other. I hate to burst your bubble, but you are in California. There is a virtually a 0% chance of Romney winning California. I am in Indiana. Romney is going to win Indiana, whether I vote for him or not. (The Electoral College is there so that the election is would not decided by mere populism.) There are really just 7 or 8 states left in question, and that number will likely be less come election day. If this is really all about math - http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2012/08/math-and-elections.html - then it really won’t matter much for individuals in swing states either. Although some recent elections are assumed to have been “decided” by the third party vote, none of these elections have been decided by anything close to one vote. Florida was an anomaly, but it was still decided by hundreds of votes, and ultimately, the Supreme Court could have gone either way. My point is even if I lived across the border in Ohio, the likelihood of my vote making the difference in the election is astronomical (if this sounds ridiculous, remember, it’s because I’m using pragmatism and following it all the way through). And I know what the response is, well what if everyone thought like you? Well, then a good third party candidate would win. Or, what if “enough” people thought like you? “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil…” (Exodus 23:2).
By the way, if you believe the polls (and I don’t necessarily believe them, but you have to believe them to some degree in order to vote pragmatically) you have to recognize that Romney’s chances of winning are extremely slim to none. He has to win nearly all of the swing states and he is trailing in almost every one of those. Almost impossible.
As far as a Romney presidency making a difference in the trajectory of America regarding abortion, gun control, deficit, gay marriage, etc. , have we not seen enough already to know that is not going to be the case? Take a look at the abortion statistics from Clinton to Bush to Obama. ( http://www.mccl.org/us-abortion-stats.html ) Has there really been a difference in the outcome? Take a look at the spending statistics from Clinton to Bush to Obama (http://augmentedtrader.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/four-charts-illustrating-the-spending-and-revenue-records-of-presidents-clinton-bush-and-obama/ ). Has there been a difference in the outcome (not the rhetoric, but the outcome)? “But we have to be concerned about Obama’s stimulus plans”. Really, which president started that trend? “Oh, but we have to be concerned about draconian policies that are taking away our freedoms.” Um, who signed the Patriot Act? Who signed executive orders like it was going out of style long before Obama made it cool. “Ah, but the Republicans are going to stop abortion!” Listen, I voted for Republicans for years (and I still do vote for some) largely because of the promise that they were pro-life. The Republicans had six years with control of each of the branches. How much did they do about abortion? The same amount that Romney will do. Yes, we need evangelism to change the electorate, and if Obama destroys this country, people might be more willing to listen (God often brought difficulty in order to see repentance – see Amos 4). Remember, I’m pretending to think pragmatically here…
Mat
More...
Yes, biblically, everything that we do should be based on a biblical standard (I Thess. 5:21-22)—even when we really, really want to win a political game. So, I don’t believe my vote should be any different. Ultimately, when it comes down to it, I will not decide how to vote based on what I think the results might be, I will vote based on the fact that I will have to answer to God for my vote. Some will laugh at this, but, if “every idle word that men shall speak they shall give an account thereof in the day of judgment,” then surely my vote will be considered. If “God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil,” then surely I ought be concerned about my vote. So, I believe that my vote should be based on a standard of what God thinks, and His thoughts, of course, are expressed in His word. This means that if any candidate does not meet that standard, he will not get my vote (even if there is an ‘R’ after his name). And by the way, that standard that I use is not “he has to be not quite as awful as the other guy.” And as for being a good steward of my vote, first and foremost “it is required in stewards that a man be found faithful”, not necessarily successful. You write these things all the time, why don’t they apply to this election?
So, I know what you might be thinking: “The Bible doesn’t tell us how to vote.” Just like the Bible supposedly doesn’t tell us what music to listen to, what is considered men’s clothing, or what is really the correct text of Scripture. But, the Bible does indeed have many places we can turn to that can be used to set a biblical standard. If I’m going to get God’s thoughts on the matter, I’m going to start with II Samuel 23:3 where it says,
“The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God”,
and go on to many other Scriptures. So, because I am using a biblical standard, I don’t end up on this slippery slope where my only standard is “he has to have a legitimate chance to win and he has to be at least a little bit less wicked than the other guy.” I’m sure you would never actually consider it this way, but if your logic is followed through, you would have to say that if Hitler and Stalin represented the only two candidates that had a chance of winning, you would vote for whichever one you would deem to be the lesser of two evils. So, I’m guessing you do have a standard, and it’s somewhere between a Morman who believes that Jesus is the devil’s brother and Hitler, but I can guarantee you that’s not God’s standard.
Mat
More...
So with this biblical standard there are some simple requirements that a candidate must meet or they will not get my vote. This isn’t necessarily all of them, but they are the basics:
1) He must not believe there is any scenario in which it is acceptable for a baby to be murdered.
2) He must not give any legitimacy to any homosexual or other perverted relationship.
3) He must not be involved in any way with leading our nation further into the New World Order (soon to be the kingdom of the anti-Christ) (see McCain and the trilateral commission).
4) He must not be one who would likely spend the country’s money like a drunken sailor.
5) He must not be one who would lead or continue us on a path to godless socialism.
Others may apply, of course. The sad thing is that this is the type of stuff that people will say of, “Well, we’re not electing a pastor, you know!” Really? Are these standards really even that high? Be against murder. Be against perversion (a few decades ago the question would have been unthinkable). Don’t be on the side of the anti-Christ. The man doesn’t have to be an immersionist or a cessationist, or a Baptist, or a fundamentalist. I’m not really asking for much here. But our country is in such bad shape, because, in part of the humanistic thinking of pragmatism.
A study of the concept of the Hegelian Dialectic will bring things like this into clear focus. Romney is the thesis, this time around. Obama is the antithesis. And the center (synthesis) can keep moving so long as we are all (or most) along for the ride (consensus). So, really a vote for Romney is a vote for the same cycle that is and has been bringing this country toward destruction. “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6).
As I stated earlier, I am a friend of this site and of you, Kent. I have great appreciate for what you write. It has helped me tremendously. This is why I was somewhat surprised by this segment.
God Bless,
Mat
Dear Mat,
I appreciate your sincerity in your comments. However, voting for Romney instead of a third party candidate is not an abandonment of Biblical principle.
1.) Scripture shows that God can bless His people by giving them even ungodly idolatrous rulers--think Cyrus. It was good that God gave Cyrus to Israel to let the Jews go back and rebuild the temple.
2.) Scripture itself speaks of looking at the state of the world to know what to do in political relations. For example:
1Ch 12:32* And of the children of Issachar, which were men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do; the heads of them were two hundred; and all their brethren were at their commandment.
Pr 14:8* The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way: but the folly of fools is deceit.
Thus, considering the fact that Romney can win, while a third party guy can't, is not an unbiblical pragmatism, but a Biblical evaluation of the way things are.
3.) Furthermore, since the standards you set about who you would or would not vote for are not themselves found in the explicit statement of Scripture, you are yourself making evaluative decisions, such as those that you critique in Pastor Brandenburg's argument for voting for Romney. Why is it more important, for a "pure" candidate, to have opposition to the Trilateral Commission rather than, say, being a fundamentalist? And can any unconverted person not be on the side of the anti-Christ, at least in some senses?
What is more, I would contend that our Biblical use of citizenship rights, illustrated by Paul in the book of Acts, and our duty to be salt and light, as found in the Sermon on the Mount, require that we vote for someone-Romney--who could put strict constructionists on the Supreme Court, vs. someone like Obama who is 100% certain to appoint judicial tyrants. Do you want UN treaties becoming the supreme law of the land instead of the constitution? Do you want a constitutional right to sodomite marriage? We're one member of the supreme court away. We should be wise and have understanding of the times and keep more preservatives--like salt--in society, rather than having Obama reelected.
By the way, in the affirmation that Romney has very little chance of winning, I suggest that you might be giving the national media just a bit too much credit--a media that is generally assuming turnout will be, in its percentages of Democrats vs. Republicans, like that of 2008.
It is quite likely that I will not have the time to get into an extended further discussion here. Thanks again for your thoughtful comments. It's good you want to honor the Lord with your vote. I do also, and that is why, Lord willing, I will vote, out of principle, against Obama and for Romney.
By the way, I live in Wisconsin. We're a swing state.
I was also a delegate at the state Republican convention, where my wife and I gave large numbers of the gospel tract "The Role of Government: Has God Spoken?" tract on my website to the other delegates and others there, including a good variety of powerful people. Passing out thousands of copies of that tract is a great way to preach the gospel and stand for righteous politics. It's at:
http://sites.google.com/site/thross7.
Show me in the Bible where we are directed to choose the lesser of two evils... EVER!
Beyond that, anyone who would willingly support a person who believes Satan and Jesus are brothers is a fool.
Dear Carl,
Perhaps voting for Romney is employing one's Biblical responsibility to be salt and light, and have less evil in the country by having someone in office who is against murdering little children, will appoint people to the Supreme Court who will overturn Roe v. Wade, who will not allow the abominable attacks on religious liberty advanced by Mr. Obama, who will not enact sodomite marriage by judicial dictat, who will not bring in UN treaties to replace the constitution by appointing radical leftists to the Supreme Court--treaties that could make spanking, and thus Christianity, illegal--perhaps, I say, casting such a vote is not "choosing the lesser of two evils" but Biblically employing one's responsibilities as a citizen.
Unless you have a candidate for president who believes exactly like you in every way, you are also in the same boat as those who vote for Romney over Obama--or if you don't vote at all, then you are actually engaging in the evil of violating many passages that teach that we should be salt and light and employ citizenship privileges if we have them.
You may call everyone who votes for Romney a fool if you wish, but if Obama gets to tilt the court even more leftward, you may not be able to teach your children homosexuality is a sin or have them educated to believe that--it may become "hate speech," just like spanking is abuse. Perhaps when you are in jail for such activities, voting for Romney will not seem as foolish.
I hope, Carl, you don't live in a swing state.
Post a Comment