Post-Election Analyses: The Not As Bad Candidate
Dr. Randy White
Note: I wrote this article several weeks before the election and decided not to post it. Having already written an article I called “Why We Lose” and “What To Do When We Lose,” I decided I had written enough on politics. Sadly, I was right in “Why We Lose.” If we are ever going to win, it will be because Christians change their vote-strategy. What I present today was a very unpopular opinion the day before election day. My prayer is that Christians will abandon the ungodly idea of voting for the “Not as bad candidate” now, and forevermore! What follows are my pre-election thoughts, but I believe they have post-election value.
In this election season, many in the evangelical world have gone from not supporting Romney in the primary season to endorsing him in the general election. In my personal circle of influence, I don’t know of any of my friends and associates who voted for Romney at the primary, but many–even most–are supportive of him in the general (even to the point of endorsement).The typical rationale for a Romney vote is that he is not as bad as Obama. Perhaps he is not, and at least on a few issues, he is clearly not. For example, his support for Israel and diligence against Islamic aggression seems to be secure. This is a welcome change from the current administration. On other issues he is at least currently not as bad, though his record is not as firmly conservative as I would prefer. Before the primary, in fact, one would have considered Romney to be the moderate to liberal in the field of Republicans.The question really comes down to this: when do Christians need to quit voting for the not-as-bad candidate and begin voting for the good candidate? I fear that the Christian pragmatism that has trumped doctrine in local churches has spilled into a pragmatism of vote as well. I can understand this pragmatism to an extent. After all, who wants to allow America to continue on its current trajectory toward disaster? The path we are on is so dangerous that part of me wants to say “do something, do anything to slow us down!” Romney appears to be getting the “I want things to slow down” vote. But is the fact that we will give Romney our vote on this basis alone a sign that we ARE the frog in the kettle? And if we are that frog, can we be comfortable with a slower boil, or should we do something drastic to get out of the kettle? To analyze the issue, let me present this question: how far does the “not as bad” argument go for you? What if Obama was the not-as-bad vote. Would you vote for him? Suppose the only viable choices were he and the Loony Party candidate Rosanne Barr. Would you give Obama the vote? If not, why not? What about other not-as-bad scenarios:
- Would you vote for Fidel Castro if Vladamir Lenin was the other front-runner?
- Would you vote for Hugo Chavez who is not-as-bad as Adolf Hitler?