Is It Wrong to Vote for the Lesser of Two Evils?

[Brother Rick]

Is it?

I’m not into politics, because I’m not a fan of getting disappointed and my hope is in the return of Christ, not the return of conservatism (haha!) to the Republican party. At the same time I understand the responsibility to vote.

From what I've heard, Romney is a liberal, Gingrich is a tramp, and Paul doesn't support Israel. What business do I have as Bible believing Christian voting any of them?

At the same time Obama is a Communist. I enjoy having freedom, don't you?

Should I refuse to vote and then secretly breathe a sigh of relief when my state goes red (I live in Idaho), or should I vote even if it's one of the above three guys?

What's a guy supposed to do?

These are honest questions.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Rick Schworer

[John81]

Don't forget that "none of the above" is a viable option.

If we had the choice to vote for Hitler or Stalin, would it seem acceptable to vote for Hitler because he's the less of the two evils?

God is in control of the entire universe. Nothing happens without His directly causing it or allowing it to happen as it does for His own purposes.

We know from Scripture that if we do right, if we obey His Word, He will work all things together for good.

We also know from Scripture that if we try to do things in our own power, or if we try to "help" God, that things typically go very wrong.

If a Christian is presented with no worthwhile candidate to vote for, voting for none in that category is a viable option.


As to the three candidate you mentioned

Romney is a liberal trying very hard to convince voters he's now a conservative.

Gingrich has indeed been a tramp, cheating on two wives while they were ill and then divocing them for the one he was cheating with. Gingrich also isn't a true conservative; he's more of a neo-con that's will to compromise with liberals...meaning his already watered down "conservative" ideas get further diluted by the time he gets something passed.

Paul does support Israel, but not in the same underhanded way most previous presidents have done so. Paul's idea of supporting Israel is to cut off all foreign aid. Israel has said they don't really need American aid as they once did and if America were not giving billions to all of Israel's enemies, Israel would be way ahead. Paul has also said that Israel sould be allowed to determine her own internal and foreign policy affairs as Israel sees best, not having to gain American approval as has been the deal for decades now. Paul also believes that if Israel deems it in her best interest to engage any of her enemies, America should not condemn her and should allow Israel to fully pursue the engagement according to their own best interests. This in favor of how past presidents have threatened Israel and forced them to stop engagements rather than gaining the much more decisive victory they could have achieved.

[Brother Rick]

I've heard that about Paul as well, which I support that kind of thinking.

So you think it's wrong to vote for a guy who isn't really all that great, over standing by and letting diet-Satan get re-elected? I get the idea of not voting for Hitler or Stalin, but that's not the case here.

I wanted to puke after I voted for McCain, and I wish I hadn't. I said after that that I'd never vote for a liberal ever again, and so I probably won't vote for Romney if he gets it. But the truth be told, I'd much rather have Romney than Obama. So while I won't vote for Romney, inside I'd be relieved to see him get it over Obama. Isn't that hypocritical?

[John81]

I've heard that about Paul as well, which I support that kind of thinking.

So you think it's wrong to vote for a guy who isn't really all that great, over standing by and letting diet-Satan get re-elected? I get the idea of not voting for Hitler or Stalin, but that's not the case here.

I wanted to puke after I voted for McCain, and I wish I hadn't. I said after that that I'd never vote for a liberal ever again, and so I probably won't vote for Romney if he gets it. But the truth be told, I'd much rather have Romney than Obama. So while I won't vote for Romney, inside I'd be relieved to see him get it over Obama. Isn't that hypocritical?

It's a false idea that not voting for a particular candidate is the same as casting a vote for another.

Several of our Founding Fathers made it clear that only good Christian men were worthy of leadership. Several also pointed out the Constitution would only work if Christians were governing.

Now, we know that no candidate is perfect so that leaves us with the question of how much baggage are we willing to accept. No doubt in times past voters were not willing to accept major charactor flaws or deviation from what they viewed as solid policy stances. Unfortunately for us today, most voters don't care if the president is as flawed as the average lost soul on the streets.

So, do we accept candidates who have a history of lying...such as continual flip-flopping (not speaking of a person who has had a sincere change in their view), glossing over their failures while overinflating their successes, saying two things at once...

Do we accept those who have made mistakes, sometimes major sins, and while they admit they made a mistake they show no signs of actual regret or repentance?

Do we accept that a man can't be trusted by his own wife but an entire nation should trust him as president?

Do we accept those who say they stand for X but have a history of quickly compromising away X in favor of Z or F?

Do we accept those who say they will honour their oath of office and actually abide by the Constitution when they have a history of doing the opposite and their own platforms don't agree with that statement?

These are just some of the questions to ask ourselves.

[Brother Rick]

Well said.

[JerryNumbers]

What would be right about supporting the least bit of evil?

Did our Savior set an example for supporting the least bit of evil?

[no name joe]

If Gingrich gets the nomination, I'm definitely voting for Obama. Obama has much more character, whereas Gingrich seems to me to be morally bankrupt.

If Romney gets the nomination, I am up in the air on who to vote for.

I like Obama's tax policy, health care policy, and international policy, but I dislike his policy on most social issues.

Edited January 25, 2012 by kindofblue1977

[Brother Rick]

What would be right about supporting the least bit of evil?

Did our Savior set an example for supporting the least bit of evil?

That doesn't make any sense.

Jesus picked Judas as a disciple. He picked Peter and Paul who were hotheads. He picked Mark who was a quitter. He picked you for the ministry, are you sinless?

Picking a president isn't the same as picking a God, spouse, or even pastor. It's below all three of them, and if you are not willing to accept some things in a person because they are human, then you should never get married or vote.

A person can't choose to not be part of a local church because we're command to, so there's no way out. The churches in the New Testament and Revelation all had major problems, yet God didn't tell the people in them to leave. Why? Because God knows we're human and he expects us to do the best we can with what we have. He does the best He can with what He has everytime He decides to use us.

[HappyChristian]

John Adams said,
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”


However, please note that he did not say Christian (many purport that he was a Christian, but he was actually Unitarian...last I heard, their beliefs aren't biblical...). He said moral and religious. I realize that Christianity is the true root of morality, so that is not the point. But the founders inserted into the Constitution the caveat that no religious test is to be applied to office seekers. That doesn't mean individuals can't make their own requirements; that means that there can be no forbidding of federal office holders due to religious belief or lack thereof (the only religion I would not include, and I don't believe our founders would either, is islam because it is a politico/religious system which is diametrically opposed to our Constitution and therefore followers of that can not truthfully promise to uphold the Constitution, but rather work to undermine it).

See, the thing that so many Americans (and it seems especially Christians nowadays) don't understand is that we the people are to be the true rulers in America. WE are supposed to hold our office holders (public SERVANTS, not rulers) to the US Constitution (for federal congress, POTUS and SCOTUS - SCOTUS can be impeached, although people think they are the final say so on everything...but they aren't, really. We the people are, Constitutionally) and to each individual state Constitution. Many states, in their original Constitutions, put in the requirement that office-seekers were to be of a religious nature (some put in that they need to believe in God and fear Him; others specify that they must believe in Jesus Christ). States can do that, because states, under the US Constitution are supposed to be sovereign, only being held to federal scrutiny where the US Constitution specifically states it (NOT where people like Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi and their ilk proclaim there is authority - you know, like in that [non-existent] general welfare clause...).

God does allow things...but to be quite honest, the responsibility for the direction this country has gone and continues to go lies squarely on the shoulders of the Christians who sit back and do nothing. YES, we are to win souls (but ARE we?), YES, we are to be a right witness (but ARE we?)...but YES we are to put our feet to work and DO SOMETHING to preserve the liberties our forefathers fought and died for. I'm so glad they weren't apathetic! I truly have no respect for Christians who gripe about government (whether federal, state, or local) who do not put feet to their supposed prayers.

That said, it is indeed a conundrum, Rick, as we look at the candidates.

Ron Paul does not really stand a chance of getting elected. With white-supremacist groups supporting him, there would be too much of a possibility of charges of racism and anti-semitism that would stick. His purported belief that Mossad was responsible for 9/11 would re-surface, too (and I did hear him answer someone who asked him why he wouldn't come out with the truth about 9/11 that he didn't need the controversy, he had too much on his plate...). My personal opinion is that RPaul isn't truly running to get elected. He is running to pave the way for his son, Rand (who I could actually get behind!). He has not said he would run as an independent if he doesn't get the GOP nomination, but he hasn't ruled it out,either. He's been quite coy about it, actually. If he does run as an independent, he will split the votes and BO will win. That doesn't sound too much like someone who is really concerned with the direction this country is going...

Romney is actually a liberal trying to cloak himself as a conservative. But I'm sure of one thing - if he were elected, the media would hold him to the fire a lot better than they do BO.

Gingrich is not completely conservative. But he is more so than Romney. There are a number of things being said about him now that aren't true - but just enough truth is in there to condemn. Do I like his serial polygamy? No. No-one with any brains would. But I also know that he has stated that he sought forgiveness for his actions, so who am I to judge? We can say that he didn't really, but how do we know?

Of the 3, I think only Newt has the capability to debate BO (and, if he gets the nomination, you watch - BO will refuse the third debate...).

BO has been allowed to do extreme damage to our country and to our Constitution. This supposed Constitutional lawyer (is anyone aware that both he and Michelle were disbarred?) has sidestepped the Constitution he swore to uphold. He has stated more than once that he will do what he wants - with or without Congress (he has NO authority to do so. NONE). And he has done it. Congress is culpable in this matter, because they have not restrained him. But we the people are also culpable. And we need to undo the disaster that was done in 2008.

Voting for one of the GOP may not seem like the ideal, but it is what we have to work with. We need to get BO out of the White House and undo most of what he's done (and that includes health care, taxes, and foreign policy).

If a person doesn't want to vote for one of the candidates, that's fine. But if you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain. I know, I know, people will disagree with that. But if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Apathy is very strong amongst Christians these days. Apathy towards politics. People like to quote the founders, but too often it's to excuse their own apathy (not intended toward anyone here, so don't take offense).

You posted while I was, Rick. And I think your post basically answers your OP.... :icon_smile:

[Annie]

I'm with you, Rick. I don't watch the debates or Fox News or CNN or anything. From what I've observed over the years, all politicians are willing to compromise their principles in order to get elected. That's what politics is all about, after all--you don't schmooze, you lose. Politics can be a very dirty business for sure.

That said, not all "principles" are equal, IMO. So, therefore, it's up to the voter to evaluate each candidate away from all the hoopla and limelight and decide which one most reflects the values and policies that voter thinks is important.

My vote in the primary never really counts, since the candidate will have already been chosen by the time North Carolinians are allowed to vote. So, my choice is clear: I will vote for the person who is running against Obama.

The "lesser of two evils" applies in every election, since all men are sinners. Here is my take on the Republican candidates, just from my limited observation. (I do think that perhaps people like me who have had limited media interaction and therefore aren't all caught up and enamored with one candidate as a result of schmoozy rhetoric can see more clearly, because they are not affected by media spin and/or the personalities of the candidates.)

The Republican candidates are all sinners. I cannot see their hearts; some have made professions of faith. Whether or not a person is a "Christian" has little or no effect on the likelihood of my voting for them. Politicians tend to say anything they think will help them get elected. Obama claims to be a Christian...So has every President in my lifetime, as far as I can tell (maybe not Ford?). So, the "Christian" argument is moot. I would never vote for a "Christian" who would be an inept leader over a non-Christian who would effectively govern and enforce values and policies that I believe in. I'm not voting for a pastor or someone to lead me spiritually. I'm voting for a governmental leader. It stands to reason, then, that I would vote for the person who would govern the country according to biblical and sound Constitutional principles, whether or not he's aware that he's "following the Bible" in his governance.

IMO, Santorum (I know he's Catholic, but I'm using the term Christian broadly here, and he seems to be squeaky clean character-wise) fits that bill (of being a Christian that would not be an effective leader). Yeah, his character seems solid, but he wouldn't have a clue about how to govern this country effectively. Still, he'd be a lot better than Obama who is actively tearing the country limb from limb.

Romney seems duplicitous to me...the perfect politician. I have a hard time trusting him, but am open to doing so. Still, I would vote for him over Obama since I KNOW I can't trust Obama to govern the country in a way that promotes any kind of growth whatsoever.

Paul is just weird and whiny in a "muppety" sort of way. He would make a miserable President. Still, IMO his Presidency wouldn't be as miserable as Obama's (if he is able to instate at least a few of his policies, which are more solid than what we have now). He would be my last choice, but I'd still vote for him over Obama.

Gingrich has messed up morally in a big way. I'm certainly not thrilled with everything he has done over the years. Yet there's something about him that sets him apart from the other candidates. He has admitted failure. That's huge for a politician. Humility is a rare commodity in politics. Every man proclaims his own greatness in palatable little sound bites, glorifying his records, glossing over his mistakes. Newt is very refreshing in that he says, "Yup. I made some really bad mistakes. I regret those mistakes. I am calling them what they are. I'm not glossing over them or trying to pass the blame. I have asked forgiveness, and I'm moving on now, a wiser person." As a Christian who herself has been forgiven, I am so much more inclined to forgive others who have admitted failure. Now, is Newt just playing politics? Maybe. But I still think that his display of humility (even if that's all it is) sets him apart. Talk about a character trait that is essential in leadership! I'd rather have at the helm someone who has failed, admitted his mistakes, and learned from them (and who would effectively lead the country) than someone who is on some ego trip (like Obama), running roughshod over the Constitution and instituting policies that the majority of his fellow Americans despise.

Under Obama, the country is doing a collective nose-dive in every way. Under a Republican candidate, the wreck will at the very least be postponed a few more years. I guess you can probably tell that Gingrich is my favorite, although he has baggage just like anyone else does. But, as a patriotic American, I will not play the "well, God is sovereign so I don't really need to do my civic duty" card while my country goes to hell in a handbasket.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Annie

[Brother Rick]

I lean more and more towards the Scriptural principle that we are supposed to do the best we have with what we have. There is nothing incompatible with faith when it comes to that principle. As a Christian, you attend the best church you can. As a pastor, you do the best you can to reach your community with what you have. You have the best family you have with the spouse you married. You don't quit any of these situations because of inperfections.

In all these cases people have to deal with the consequences of the past. We must do the best we can because of the consequences of actions of the nation we live in, which in the end are a result of Christians not being the salt of the Earth. Once again, I believe that Scriptures are clear that we are to do the best we can with the sitution that God allows us to be in.

[Annie]

I lean more and more towards the Scriptural principle that we are supposed to do the best we have with what we have. There is nothing incompatible with faith when it comes to that principle. As a Christian, you attend the best church you can. As a pastor, you do the best you can to reach your community with what you have. You have the best family you have with the spouse you married. You don't quit any of these situations because of inperfections.

In all these cases people have to deal with the consequences of the past. We must do the best we can because of the consequences of actions of the nation we live in, which in the end are a result of Christians not being the salt of the Earth. Once again, I believe that Scriptures are clear that we are to do the best we can with the sitution that God allows us to be in.

Well said, Rick. We live in an imperfect world. The "lesser of two evils" is our choice in every single area of life (except when we're talking about our perfect Savior). That's what some people have a hard time grasping. No situation, no person, no church, no school, no job, no house location, no political candidate is perfect. The logic, then, is inescapable. We MUST choose the lesser of two evils. There is no other choice for the Christian. "Not choosing" is not taking the high ground, as idealistically lofty as it may sound. It is refusing the good that is offered, and therefore allowing the evil and ugly to gain ground. Edited January 25, 2012 by Annie

[Brother Rick]

Well said, Rick. We live in an imperfect world. The "lesser of two evils" is our choice in every single area of life (except when we're talking about our perfect Savior). That's what some people have a hard time grasping. No situation, no person, no church, no school, no job, no house location, no political candidate is perfect. The logic, then, is inescapable. We MUST choose the lesser of two evils. There is no other choice for the Christian. "Not choosing" is not taking the high ground, as idealistically lofty as it may sound. It is refusing the good that is offered, and therefore allowing the evil and ugly to gain ground.

I think this can be carried to an unscriptural extreme though. Take for instance the primary. We should vote for the best man in the primary, but many weak-kneeded conservative voters will not. No conservative thinks Romney would make a better president than the other three guys, but he'll get a ton of votes from conservatives because he is "more electable" and has a better shot of beating Obama. When a person does that they ARE sacrificing their values because there ARE better choices out there. Edited January 25, 2012 by Rick Schworer

[Annie]

I think this can be carried to an unscriptural extreme though. Take for instance the primary. We should vote for the best man in the primary, but many weak-kneeded conservative voters will not. No conservative thinks Romney would make a better president than the other three guys, but he'll get a ton of votes from conservatives because he is "more electable" and has a better shot of beating Obama. When a person does that they ARE sacrificing their values because there ARE better choices out there.

I don't know about that, Rick...I think it all depends on what you mean by the "best man." I personally think Romney would make a better President than Santorum or Paul...Christians have the liberty to disagree on that. (As I said, I'm not passionate about any of the candidates, really.) I don't vote in the general election based solely on "Christianity" or character, or even on past performance...so, why should I do so in the primary? Electability does indeed enter in; why nominate a candidate that (no matter how squeaky clean or Constitutionally correct) you KNOW will lose the general election race before even entering it? This fact plays into the whole "lesser of two evils" option. The greater evil is a shoo-in if the lesser evil has no chance to win. Christians have an obligation to choose the lesser of two evils in the Presidential election, just as they have the obligation to choose the lesser of two evils in any other area of their lives. This will look different for every Christian. After prayerful evaluation, you might choose Santorum or Paul over Romney, and I might choose Gingrich over all the others. We're different people with different opinions. We can both be guided by Scriptural principles, and make two different selections, because no candidate is perfect.

I wholeheartedly believe that we should nominate the man who has the best chance of beating Obama. I think that man is Newt Gingrich, not Romney.. (And I like Newt anyway for the reasons I've mentioned before.) To nominate an obvious loser is to choose the greater evil.

In short, I believe it is my inescapable Christian and civic duty to choose the lesser of two (or three, or four) evils in the 2012 Presidential election. I am not choosing the lesser of two evils if I throw my support behind a candidate who will certainly lose to Obama. I am choosing the greater evil. Edited January 25, 2012 by Annie

[HappyChristian]

:goodpost: both Annie and Rick.