Voting for Romney: One Last Stand
Before Election Day
by Sarah Geis, MA
I mailed in my ballot about a week ago, which contained a vote for Mitt
Romney and Paul Ryan. Many conservative voters have been hesitant to vote for
Romney, and some have decided to support third-party candidates instead. There
are many reasons for this, but I am convinced that the Romney-Ryan ticket is
the right choice, despite the fact that I do not consider Governor Romney to be
a true conservative. While this little essay may be an exercise in futility, I
hope it will serve as an explanation of why I believe that conservatives and
Christians can and should vote for a politically moderate Mormon (this time
around, anyway).
The first step in my argument is to address just what I hold to be the
purpose of post-primary voting. Many people, including individuals whom I know
and respect, believe that we should vote for the person who most closely aligns
with our values. But this is not always so. If voting equals support for the
person most closely aligned with our values, then we should not feel confined
to voting within the two-party majority. The problem is, why limit your
selection to the people listed on the ballot? Is not the person most closely
aligned with your values
you yourself? It
seems that this view would at the very least allow, if not compel, people to
write in themselves (or at the very least their best friends) at the voters
block. Take care not to misunderstand here, for values is still a vital
consideration. However, it is not the
only
consideration.
In addition to considering the candidates’ values (such as ethical theory,
political philosophy, voting record, religion, etc.), the other main quality to
consider is electability. In my estimation, this is the most important
principle of major voting decisions. The reason for this is simple: if we
assume that all candidates are imperfect (a safe assumption, that), I am most
concerned that my vote represent one less vote for the candidate whom I believe
to have a real chance to do the most damage to the country. In other words, we
should vote against the greatest of the evils. After the primaries, according
to this view, voters have the responsibility to find out who is the most
dangerous of the frontrunners, and do everything in our power to ensure that
the worst of the lot does not get elected. This requires a very different
approach to the vote. It requires that we not view a vote as an endorsement, as
a claim to identify with a certain candidate, nor as even a vote
for. Rather, it is a strategic vote
against. A vote, in this view, is a
strategic move to ensure the preservation of our country. In the
two-party system, the only way to take votes away from the worst candidate is
to vote for the other major contender. Thus, to those who hold to this view, a
vote for a conservative third-party candidate is, in fact, a vote taken away
from the Republican candidate, and therefore, increases the gap between the
Republican and the Democrat candidates. This is how voters of this mindset can,
in good conscience, say that a vote for a conservative third-party candidate is
a vote for the Democrat (in this case, Obama).
The next task becomes to determine who is, in fact, the worst candidate.
This season, we have a major candidate (Obama) who poses a direct threat to our
Constitutional system as we know it (my purpose is not to convince the reader
of this here—the evidence is all around for those who care to responsibly
research), and the other major candidate (Romney) represents a religious
group-- theologically a cult-- which is fundamentally opposed to historic
Christian orthodoxy. However, Romney does still believe (generally) in the
founding political principles of this nation. What is a politically
conservative Christian to do? Are we not to oppose all perversions of the
faith? Yes, the Christian should of course be primarily concerned with
preserving and defending historic, biblical Christianity. However, without the
religious freedom provided by our Constitutional system, the defense of the
faith becomes exponentially more difficult. Moreover, the role of politicians
is to protect and uphold the Constitution, not to defend the Christian faith.
The uniqueness of the Constitution is that it is a Natural Law document. The
candidate who believes that all rights come from God, not from the almighty
State, is going to be more predisposed to limit the role of the federal
government. When rights are believed to be given by the State, then those
rights can also be revoked by the State. Given these considerations, the
greatest threat to
America
is the candidate who believes (at least in practice—deciphered by past speeches
and voting record) that rights come from the State, not from God. That
candidate is Barack Obama. Yes, Mormonism is heretical, and idolizes
America and the
Constitution for religious reasons. However, it is better to vote for a
non-Christian who makes the mistake of too much reverence for our Country and
founding documents than a (possible, but unlikely) Christian who wants to
“fundamentally transform
America”
and believes the Constitution to be outdated.
So, I am not voting against my conscience. My conscience tells me to
preserve the American experiment as long as possible, for although ailing, it
is
America qua America that is the last great
stronghold of religious freedom, justice, and economic prosperity. A vote for
Romney-Ryan is intended to stop the bleeding, and set us up for greater reform
later. A vote for Obama—whether directly or indirectly—is a vote to pull life
support, and we may not have the chance to reform later. Therefore, I voted
strategically for Romney, even though I do not endorse him politically or
religiously. And given the reasons discussed, I am not compromising my values
by so doing.