Posted by
Playful Walrus on Monday, October 01, 2007 12:35:18 PM
Does a third party candidate make sense for politically conservative Christians?
Christian conservatives have certain well-known priorities:
Right to Life issues
Protecting marriage from counterfeiting
Religious freedom
Judicial restraint
School choice
Parental authority over minor children
There are plenty of others, but you get the idea.
But what should be the highest priority?
The highest priority should be defending the U.S., because without a strong defense of our country, none of the other debates matter. That strong defense must include a well-funded, well equipped, motivated, and effectively deployed military; sophisticated intelligence operations; and border control and immigration enforcement. Terrorists and rogue nations seek to bring us down, and we must defend ourselves from their attacks and disrupt their plans.
The GOP frontrunners in the Presidential campaign may not have stellar positions or track records on all of the Religious Right’s priorities, and a couple have other characteristics that make evangelical Christians queasy (multiple divorces and family strife, active membership in an organizational and theological cult with really good PR and tireless apologists), but what is their position on national defense and homeland security? Can the person be an effective leader?
Yes, ideally, we’d like a candidate who shares our major political stances and our religion and has demonstrated our moral ideals. However, we’re not voting for our lead pastor or theologian. We are voting for President of the United States of America.
A major conservative third party candidacy would likely result in the election of a Democrat. While it might be tempting to “send the GOP a message”, for at least four years we’d have Edwards, Clinton, Obama, Gore, or someone similar as Commander-In-Chief, appointing judges (including Supreme Court justices), issuing executive orders, and signing or vetoing bills.
We have an entrenched two-party system and we need to work with that, or we’ll lose. I’d rather have McCain, Giuliani, Romney, or Thompson than Edwards, Clinton, Obama or Gore. Many doubters cite Giuliani and Romney’s less-than-conservative stances, especially from their terms as New York Mayor and Massachusetts Governor, respectively, but c’mon… those are Leftist constituencies, and they had to work with where they were.
Don’t like our top GOP choices? Then start working now for the 2012 and 2016 cycles to lift up viable, experienced political leaders who are upstanding citizens and evangelical Christians. We’re more likely to have success in doing that inside the GOP, but if anyone wants to try in the Democrat Party, which is in the grip of the labor (especially public school teachers) unions, trial lawyers, abortionists, radical homosexual Left activists, and pornographers – well, go ahead and try.
Until then, our more effective move will be working within the GOP and getting the GOP candidate elected. A GOP President is more likely to listen to our pleas than one of the likely Democrats. Most importantly, however – a GOP President is likely to be more effective at aggressively defending the U.S. That should be our priority.