A Christian Perspective on Voting This November
By Sean Evans, Chair and Professor of Political Science
Oct 18, 2016 -
The 2016 election presents Christians with a dilemma. Should Christians vote for Donald Trump whose personal character is the antithesis of Christian morality but who may support policies most Christians support? Or should Christians vote for Hillary Clinton who is more responsive to Christian concerns about social justice and the environment but also has major character flaws and will support policies that will undermine the sanctity of life, religious liberty, and the family? Or when 55% of the public have unfavorable views of both major candidates for president, should Christians instead write-in a candidate for president or vote for a third party even though that choice has no chance of winning and our vote will indirectly help elect a president whose policies most Christians oppose? These are not easy questions with easy answers. So as you make your final decision about who you should support, here are some things to keep in mind.
First, voting is a matter of prudence and not salvation. The Bible does not implicitly and explicitly tell us how we should vote or handle voting between the lesser of two evils because the Bible was written at a time when citizens did not actively govern their society. Instead, we need to use the information at our disposal, pray, and make the decision that we believe is best for our nation and our faith. In the end, Christians can justify a vote for Donald Trump (e.g., conservative policies), Hillary Clinton (e.g., Trump temperamentally unstable), Gary Johnson (e.g., other options are horrible), Jill Stein (e.g., Johnson doesn’t know about Aleppo), Evan McMullin (e.g., traditional Republican), or someone else.
Second, character trumps policy and competence. Every citizen accepts that we need to consider political competence and policy vision when deciding how to vote. However, some Christians are arguing that moral character flaws only impact personal decisions and not public decisions. We see this in the “we are electing a commander-in-chief not a pastor-in-chief argument.” However, my argument is that character is not simply having and meeting high moral personal standards. Instead, character examines the attributes, traits, and abilities that affect how one handles situations and life. This perspective focuses less on the behaviors and more on the character traits that the immoral behavior reveals about the person. Examining these traits are important because these traits develop through one’s life and tend to persist over time. Consequently, character influences the decisions they make (e.g., policy) and the way they will use the office (e.g., competence).
This perspective is usually associated with virtue ethics which focuses on developing good character in people by having then do good actions so they learn to become good people. If they become good people, the idea is that they will make moral decisions in their life. I believe this is why the Apostle Paul asks us to be imitators of Christ who throw off vices and put on virtues (Eph. 4-5; Gal. 5) as we are transformed into His image (Romans 12: 1-2; 2 Corinthians 3:18) and why he list virtues that we should look for in overseers (I Timothy 3). In fact, Paul’s lists of character traits of overseers would be a good list for all leaders. Having said this, I would argue that character is a minimal qualification and that once one has established a strong enough character in a candidate that you should then consider their competence and policy vision. Consequently, I believe that if you combine good character with good political instincts and a right vision for America that we can have a successful president.
Turning to our candidates, when I look at Trump’s personal and professional life, speeches, interviews, tweets, and performance in the campaigns, I see a charismatic, successful businessman with an ability to brand himself and command public attention. But all too often, I see an egotistical, undisciplined, dishonest, ill-informed, vindictive bully. If asked to analyze Hillary Clinton’s public life, I see an intelligent, determined, passionate, and experienced politician. Yet once again all too often, I see someone who comes close to and crosses ethical lines, has a penchant for secrecy, an insular decision making process that does not challenge her views, a paranoia and tendency to trim the truth to protect herself, a tendency to lash out at critics rather than look at mistakes she has made, and an inability to learn as she commits the same mistakes over and over again.
So my question is which of these two personas in each person is more likely to dominate and how will the negative character traits impact their public decisions? Since a president has great power over taxing and spending, regulations, investigations, and military power, I want to feel confident that they will pursue the public interest over their own interest, they will not abuse their authority to make unacceptable tradeoffs requiring sacrifices from particular individuals or groups, and that their character traits will lead them to make good decisions, admit mistakes, and become a better leader over time. If after examining the character traits of all the candidates and you feel more comfortable with one of the candidates over another, whether Trump, Clinton, or someone else, I encourage you to vote for that person.
Third, voting and the political process shapes our soul and character. Building on my previous argument, we are what we do. Our actions affect the kind of person that we become and actions done repeatedly will become habit and thus influence future decisions. In this regard, I am less concerned with the decision one makes and more about the form of the decision making process. What theories are we using to make decisions? Are we excusing behavior in politicians that we would not excuse in others? Do we use partisan standards to judge politicians and political events instead of biblical standards? Are we trusting too much in government to solve our problems? Are we guilty of moral preening because we believe our vote choice is morally superior to someone else’s choice? There is nothing wrong with making a utilitarian choice in this election, for example, as long as utilitarianism doesn’t become your dominate mode of making decisions. Instead, the kinds of decisions and arguments we make about the election will affect us, especially if we spend a lot of time on politics and trying to make arguments that we typically would not make. In short, we need to be careful how we make our decision so that we leave this election season the same or even a better person than when we entered it.
Fourth, we need to hold candidates to consistent biblical standards. The candidates that we support will support some things that reflect a biblical worldview and we should praise them for that. However when they support ideas or take actions that do not reflect biblical standards, we need to point that out. Too often, Christians use partisan standards instead of biblical standards. Partisan standards tend to use different principles depending upon whose party is committing a certain action (e.g., sexual harassment is disqualifying when the other party’s candidate does it but not when my party’s candidate does it). Christian standards apply the same standard regardless of which political party does the act.
Fifth, it is OK to vote for a third party candidate or write-in someone you think would be a good president. I write this not to convince others to do so but to argue that it is a prudential choice. Most Christians are not debating about whether to vote for Trump or Clinton because they oppose Clinton’s social agenda. Instead, they are debating between Trump and not-Trump. One theory of democracy sees citizens as passive choosers of candidates and argues that voters should make an instrumental decision and vote for the candidate that is closest to them on issues. Naturally in a two party system, this perspective argues you have only two choices and that voting for anyone else is wasting your vote or is indirectly a vote for the major party candidate furthest from you on the issues.
This perspective falls short both logically and theoretically. Logically, the wasted vote idea equally applies to everyone as each vote is one out of 130 million and thus a drop in the bucket. Moreover we choose our presidents by the Electoral College rather than a popular vote which means that if one lives in a state that is safe for one party, the state outcome is not in doubt and your vote doesn’t matter. Regarding responsibility, the plurality who vote for a candidate and the candidate who, through actions or policies, made it difficult for you to support him are responsible for the election outcome.
Theoretically, the classical republican idea argues that we are social beings and only by participating in politics do we become virtuous. The idea is that the individual involved in politics will engage in discussions of what the good life is, learn to look beyond one’s personal interest, and through voting and public service learn to put others ahead of yourself. And politics can do this. This perspective would argue that our vote has an instrumental and symbolic value. Symbolically, one’s vote is a signal of the kind of society that one desires and one’s participation signals your commitment to the community. A vote for a write-in or a third party is a signal that you support a politics that respects people of different sexes, races, ethnicities, etc., a politics that values honesty, a politics that looks out for those left behind by society, a politics that values duties as much as rights, and a politics that is good as the American people themselves.
From this perspective, you have a responsibility to oneself and one’s community. One’s responsibility to oneself means that you should vote for what is best for the community. One’s responsibility to the community means that we need to participate in politics, make a winsome case for our candidate, and learn from the process so we can improve our community. This election should make clear to everyone that there are people who feel left behind in our political system (e.g., Black Lives Matter, Trump supporters) and we have an obligation to understand their concerns and work to respond to them.
Sixth, we need to consider what vote choice will have the greatest impact for the Kingdom today and in the future. Most people never read the Bible but they read Christians every day. The way the people of God react to this election and the decisions we make will influence the conclusions many people will make about God. We need to make sure those actions honor Him. Our culture is clearly moving away from Christian norms. Based on this, how should we respond? Should we vote based on the Supreme Court to protect our ability to live out our faith every day of the week or should we view ourselves as a minority in America who many view as ideologues, racists, bigots, etc. and vote in a manner that will change perceptions of us and make it easier to reach them with the gospel?
Seventh, the United States is not a presidential system. We are a separated power system which limits the impact of a president and empowers other politicians. You can find candidates at the federal, state, and local level who reflect your values and you should wholeheartedly support them and work to create an environment for more such people to emerge and work to engage the culture in ways that promote your values. So if you are despairing about the election and our two choices, you actually have many choices to make this November and you should be able to find someone who can excite you and motivate your interest in this election.
Eighth, politics is important but politics cannot save us and will always fall short trying to do so. In a democracy where citizens can impact the decisions of our country, active, informed participation in politics is a means of “seeking the welfare of the city” (Jere. 29:7) and loving your neighbor (Luke 10: 27-37). Politics is important because of the environment it creates for human flourishing and laws can teach people the correct way to live by promoting certain virtues and discouraging vices. Thus, we should participate and encourage the adoption of good laws. But politics struggles to change peoples’ hearts. Only the gospel can do that and it can only do it if we evangelize more. In post Christian America, there are more and more Americans who do not know God or the gospel than ever before so we have a mission. If we don’t like what politics is producing or the decline in Christian values, we can do something about it by doing both politics and Christianity better than we have been doing so.
In conclusion, this election has shown in raw ways that we are a divided, fractured nation. Regardless of the election outcome, let us seek reconciliation with our fellow citizens. Let us, as Christians, paraphrase our greatest president who saw the approaching end of our nation’s greatest trial, and have “malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us the right, let us strive to finish the work we are in to model strong marriages, promote life from conception to grave, reconcile the races, care for His creation, be good stewards of the blessings He has given us as individuals and a nation, and do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”