I do think there is an additional option of how a voter may see it: damage control. What I mean is that they vote for the candidate who does the least to continue policies that are undesirable to the voter. Damage control is not very romantic or sacramental. It is very much desperation and survival, and I think voters on both sides of the aisle may be choosing to vote according to this option.
I agree with John Wilson: I can respect someone who sees Candidate X as the lesser of two evils, but I am highly dubious about those who seem genuinely to believe Candidate X is actively good!
More women witnessed Doug Emhoff hit a woman than ever witnessed Brett Kavanaugh do anything, and yet this story might as well not exist in the MSM -- again, hard to swallow that Candidate X is genuinely the 'candidate of character'
When you hinted at this post yesterday, I told you I suspected I’d love it. Suspicion confirmed.
It also gets at why I see so much of the “very online right” as a chest-thumping LARP. My disagreements with folks for whom I, by rights, should be an easy ally…fall along many of the fault lines you address so well here. Even so, disagreeing with me does not a LARPer make. However…
When someone lays claim to _Mr. Smith Goes to Washington_ as a favorite film, yet suggests that any true conservative (or Christian) should feel compelled to vote for Trump as part of some 4-D chess which invokes longhouses and No Enemies To The Right (or whatever variant they’ve settled on today)…something inconsistent is afoot.
When someone lays claim to being “abolitionist,” yet advocates a (compulsory) vote for something far dingier…something inconsistent is afoot. In that position, I can understand deciding to vote for something dingier as a practical necessity, but advocating that decision is another thing entirely, a sharp turn in a different direction.
The LARP is fueled, I think, by the desire for engagement from some sort of platform—the medium is the message. Most of us are inconsistent, but for most of us, that’s not on perpetual display (which, I’d argue, helps us better develop and integrate our beliefs and actions in the long run). In contrast, many platformed folks are driven to regularly expound on “beliefs,” and some of them tie themselves in knots for some audience or another.
Whipping up engagement means talking a lot, while oddly assuming no one will really hold you to it or compare you to…yourself (see: nearly every politician). If anyone actually pays attention beyond cheering for or raging against today’s thing, they’ll notice the cracks.
Yes, my affection is also very strong. It wouldn't bug me so much or make me so sad if it weren't so—my expectations of the general populace are pretty low and they don't ruffle my feathers all that much.
Christians choosing not to vote have not, in my view, fully appreciated the situation we're in, where the 1st Amendment is seriously under threat in an unprecedented way. We had a preview of it during covid (which in many ways was a test run), and several countries in Europe and South America have recently demonstrated (even if we forget the lessons of the 20th century) how swiftly dissent can be erased. Without the 1st amendment, voices defending the unborn will be not just sidelined but silenced. As Christians who trust God both in conditions or liberty and captivity, we have a moral obligation to do what we can to hold back tyranny if it lies within our power.
Is it accurate to say you are not voting this election?
Also, is there a possibility Trump could change, like Reagan? Remembering before 2015 he was essentially a New York Democrat, but shifted right in 15/16?
I don't think Trump ever really shifted, I think he was willing to overturn Roe because it was politically expedient. But he still wants to impose his New York liberal values onto the GOP.
In our two party system, when the choice is to promote the defeat of a party that is demonstrably for tyranny (see, for example, the revelations of the Twitter Files) by voting for a party that still contains effective voices for liberty, a third party vote is, in my view, not principled, but a wasted vote and a form of Christian nihilism.
I read French's piece on why he's voting for Kamala. I did not discern a seared conscience in it. He's not my cuppa in every way, but he's undergone some nasty treatment for his views which, best I can tell, he's not reciprocated. I respect that, even if I'm not sure I follow the strategy. (I don't follow the "vote Trump because he's bad but at least we can do deals with him", either).
Being a Christian ain't easy in any age. But it's particularly not easy in an age when God is disciplining us with worthless leaders.
We have the leaders we deserve. God have mercy and let's pray for them. You can't vote your way out of a curse.
I've followed French for years and have to be honest that he lost my respect a long time ago. It's sad that the alt-right trolled him the way they did, but he's made many completely free choices for the dark side since then.
It's also sad that the alt-right and biblical Christianity have gotten in bed together. Some figures I respected five years ago have come out full throated for Trumpism as an identity, a tribe, and, most importantly, a criteria to bind the conscience. It's been, um, educational.
French is the unavoidable consequence of an Evangelical theology which believes a religious establishment is unbiblical, and that citizens have to be charmed into obeying God. That's most Evangelicals. He's the brightest they've got.
What have we got as an alternative? You can't beat something with nothing.
I agree with so much of this and it has been at times vindicating but also so sad to see what has transpired in the GOP. Cards on the table I did not vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020, in 2016 I voted libertarian (I've since become a Kirkian/Burkean conservative), and in 2020 I voted for Brian T. Carrol of the American Solidarity Party (I'm voting Sonski/Onak this year). Part of it may have been a kind of Keller-inspired "third-way-ism" (both in 2016 and 2020) and in 2020 I definitely was a french follower (though not a never-Trump guy), though like you I have similarly become disillusioned when it comes to Mr. French. But more poignantly I've always had the conviction that living in a representative democracy, we should be represented by our political candidates. Every year the candidates represent us less and less and we continue to hold our nose and vote because "at least they aren't the other guy". I understand that we need a balance of principle and practicality and that refusing to vote for one of the two viable candidates is not practical, but voting without principle has lead to this constant shift of the Overton window into degeneracy. I was legitimately saddened to see the removal of support for life and traditional family from the GOP platform but I cannot say I was surprised.
So I'm 100% with you, I will not sacrifice my Christian conservative values, and unless the republican party can produce a candidate that has earned my support I have no obligation to support them. I will vote for people who do represent me, who I can be proud to say I voted for. I personally hope that the majority of Christian conservatives vote similarly. The GOP needs to see that it cannot succeed in politics without us, and to secure our vote it actually has to represent us, the only thing that stops the Overton window from shifting is our planting our feet. All that to say I may be dreaming a different dream from the enthusiastic Trump supporter, but I think mine is beautiful too.
My take on changing the GOP. Voting for a candidate that checks most of the boxes of your main concerns won't cause the GOP to change its values to be more like yours. Sure, it will make you feel like you did the right thing, but it will cause the GOP to see that they need to be more like the party winning the most votes. That explains why it is moving the way it has been going. Voting is an extremely dull knife and it seems to me that transactional voting is the only meaningful vote unless the choices which have any chance of winning are clearly evil. How well do we know any candidate of our choice and how well their performance would be when in the compromising pressure cooker of office?
I definitely agree that voting is a dull knife if that's the only political engagement we have, and I agree that voting for a candidate that checks most of my boxes will only motivate the GOP in that they see that catering to me and people who believe the same way I do will get them more votes, and honestly that's not a problem in my eyes. I'm not requiring politicians to have virtue in and of themselves, any more than I'd expect the goods and services in a market economy to be provided to me out of the kindness of people's hearts. In both cases, political candidates representing me and producers selling me goods or services, the action is preformed out of rational self interest but it benefits us mutually. I'm under no illusion that the GOP holds my values because they believe in them, I'm sure some of them do, but as the betrayal of social conservatives this election has demonstrated (and as common sense dictates) they hold the values of whoever they think gives them the best chance at winning.
That being said there's a reason I compared candidate representation to production in a free market economy. In a free market the system works off of a persons rational self interest, they serve us not out of altruism but because it benefits them. However, this rational self interest also at a certain level undermines the free market. In order for the free market to work it requires institutions like the rule of law to ensure fair exchange, but while institutions are a necessary condition of free market economies they are not sufficient conditions. You can have as many rules on the books as you want but if there is no buy-in to the rule of law then it becomes just words. There are many cases where one's own rational self interest will dictate that one break the rule of law if it benefits them, and especially as markets get bigger and the cost for any given individual breaking the rules grows smaller (1 rule breaker in 10,000 hurts almost nobody, whereas 1 in 10 is a serious problem). So there are 2 solutions, the socialist/interventionist solution of trying to regulate the behaviors from the top down, or the cultural solution of changing the culture from the bottom up. The socialist/interventionist solution fails every time because it opposes people's rational self interest and tries to force them to fight against it which no sinful man can do for long, not to mention it stifles the workings of the free market causing everyone to lose the benefits brought about through the free workings of rationally self-interested people. Inculcating a pre-rational cultural buy-in to the rule of law changes the rational calculus ensuring greater fidelity to the institutions, thus allowing the market to flourish. How is this relevant to representation in politics?
Well in the same way when we see the GOP abandoning our values there are similarly 2 options, we can cast protest votes but if this is all we do it's akin to the socialist/interventionist solution outlined in the market case, it's a dull knife as you said. So what we need is a cultural solution, we need to inculcate pre-rational values that change the rational calculus of our representatives. The only way we can really do that is through raising and educating a just and virtuous people who will oppose abortion and support traditional marriage for example. And on the other side of that the cultural inculcation of such values would hopefully also increase the tendency for our politicians to stand on principle and not compromise values whenever it's politically expedient. That being said this is a generation long endeavor and requires significant buy-in to even attempt. All I can do is try to faithfully raise up children and educate people to do the right thing and hopefully before I die I can see some fruit from that endeavor. But I'm under no illusions that these problems have a quick fix. It took a long time to get this far down the pit. It'll require a long view and many people serving faithfully day by day to dig us out, but God willing we'll get there. Or his kingdom will come, whichever comes first.
So, all that being said my third party vote may not accomplish much on it's own, a dull knife indeed, but that's not where my hopes and efforts are truly focused. If it was the only thing I were doing it'd be pitiful, but as far as it goes my third party protest vote when seen against the greater plan is hopefully one of thousands of cuts that eventually force the elephant of the GOP back onto the right track, or leads to something new and wonderful taking it's place.
I'm a Reagan Republican, mourning the loss of Old Conservatism. I don't view voting as a "sacrament," but I do consider it a moral act for which I bear responsibility. And I can't in good conscience cast a vote for either Trump or Harris.
Another defense of French's voting decision: it's not cynical in the least. He honestly believes it might help resurrect the GOP, and, thus, resurrect the possibility of someday voting for good men again. Not exactly an evil intent.
I'm not clever enough to know whether it will work, or not. But one thing I understand from experience:
Stupid should hurt.
When there are zero penalties for avarice, lying, etc. guess what multiplies?
I fail to understand why those who want to save our nation from progressives dont realize that we will be voting for an entire administration (3,000+ people) .Obviously the person who will be president is important, but the people he brings with him are essential to what he will do. The progressive bunch will weaken our nation!
Here's Jesus teaching his disciples a wise, transactional teaching: Luke 16: Jesus told this story to his disciples: “There was a certain rich man who had a manager handling his affairs. One day a report came that the manager was wasting his employer’s money. 2 So the employer called him in and said, ‘What’s this I hear about you? Get your report in order, because you are going to be fired.’
3 “The manager thought to himself, ‘Now what? My boss has fired me. I don’t have the strength to dig ditches, and I’m too proud to beg. 4 Ah, I know how to ensure that I’ll have plenty of friends who will give me a home when I am fired.’
5 “So he invited each person who owed money to his employer to come and discuss the situation. He asked the first one, ‘How much do you owe him?’ 6 The man replied, ‘I owe him 800 gallons of olive oil.’ So the manager told him, ‘Take the bill and quickly change it to 400 gallons.[a]’
7 “‘And how much do you owe my employer?’ he asked the next man. ‘I owe him 1,000 bushels of wheat,’ was the reply. ‘Here,’ the manager said, ‘take the bill and change it to 800 bushels.[b]’
8 “The rich man had to admire the dishonest rascal for being so shrewd. And it is true that the children of this world are more shrewd in dealing with the world around them than are the children of the light. 9 Here’s the lesson: Use your worldly resources to benefit others and make friends. Then, when your possessions are gone, they will welcome you to an eternal home.[c]
I do think there is an additional option of how a voter may see it: damage control. What I mean is that they vote for the candidate who does the least to continue policies that are undesirable to the voter. Damage control is not very romantic or sacramental. It is very much desperation and survival, and I think voters on both sides of the aisle may be choosing to vote according to this option.
That's the transactional view.
I agree with John Wilson: I can respect someone who sees Candidate X as the lesser of two evils, but I am highly dubious about those who seem genuinely to believe Candidate X is actively good!
https://x.com/jwilson1812two/status/1846979130384072797
More women witnessed Doug Emhoff hit a woman than ever witnessed Brett Kavanaugh do anything, and yet this story might as well not exist in the MSM -- again, hard to swallow that Candidate X is genuinely the 'candidate of character'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13898791/Kamala-Harris-husband-Doug-Emhoff-accused-ex-girlfriend-slap.html
Can't recall if already posted, but Ed Feser's analysis of 'how to vote?' is characteristically rigorous:
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2024/08/12/donald-trump-has-put-social-conservatives-in-a-dilemma/
Ed's been good on this.
When you hinted at this post yesterday, I told you I suspected I’d love it. Suspicion confirmed.
It also gets at why I see so much of the “very online right” as a chest-thumping LARP. My disagreements with folks for whom I, by rights, should be an easy ally…fall along many of the fault lines you address so well here. Even so, disagreeing with me does not a LARPer make. However…
When someone lays claim to _Mr. Smith Goes to Washington_ as a favorite film, yet suggests that any true conservative (or Christian) should feel compelled to vote for Trump as part of some 4-D chess which invokes longhouses and No Enemies To The Right (or whatever variant they’ve settled on today)…something inconsistent is afoot.
When someone lays claim to being “abolitionist,” yet advocates a (compulsory) vote for something far dingier…something inconsistent is afoot. In that position, I can understand deciding to vote for something dingier as a practical necessity, but advocating that decision is another thing entirely, a sharp turn in a different direction.
The LARP is fueled, I think, by the desire for engagement from some sort of platform—the medium is the message. Most of us are inconsistent, but for most of us, that’s not on perpetual display (which, I’d argue, helps us better develop and integrate our beliefs and actions in the long run). In contrast, many platformed folks are driven to regularly expound on “beliefs,” and some of them tie themselves in knots for some audience or another.
Whipping up engagement means talking a lot, while oddly assuming no one will really hold you to it or compare you to…yourself (see: nearly every politician). If anyone actually pays attention beyond cheering for or raging against today’s thing, they’ll notice the cracks.
This is all so true and describes people we both know of, for whom I still have affection, and yet...no lies detected.
Yes, my affection is also very strong. It wouldn't bug me so much or make me so sad if it weren't so—my expectations of the general populace are pretty low and they don't ruffle my feathers all that much.
Christians choosing not to vote have not, in my view, fully appreciated the situation we're in, where the 1st Amendment is seriously under threat in an unprecedented way. We had a preview of it during covid (which in many ways was a test run), and several countries in Europe and South America have recently demonstrated (even if we forget the lessons of the 20th century) how swiftly dissent can be erased. Without the 1st amendment, voices defending the unborn will be not just sidelined but silenced. As Christians who trust God both in conditions or liberty and captivity, we have a moral obligation to do what we can to hold back tyranny if it lies within our power.
I’m sorry I’m daft and missed the conclusion.
Is it accurate to say you are not voting this election?
Also, is there a possibility Trump could change, like Reagan? Remembering before 2015 he was essentially a New York Democrat, but shifted right in 15/16?
I will be voting third party.
I don't think Trump ever really shifted, I think he was willing to overturn Roe because it was politically expedient. But he still wants to impose his New York liberal values onto the GOP.
Just wanted to put a podcast your radar, though it’s not directly related to your post. It touches on the election
America Baby! Rotem’s Safe Haven at Hillsdale College
https://open.spotify.com/episode/3hKn9wNBhFop748Orxecxw?si=oGNPnguZSrSn1Twn5Ab9Gg&t=533
Thanks! If I'm understanding correctly, is she saying that most of her fellow Hillsdale students are voting Democrat? That's surprising!
In our two party system, when the choice is to promote the defeat of a party that is demonstrably for tyranny (see, for example, the revelations of the Twitter Files) by voting for a party that still contains effective voices for liberty, a third party vote is, in my view, not principled, but a wasted vote and a form of Christian nihilism.
That said, I still love the writing and thinking you do, sister!
I read French's piece on why he's voting for Kamala. I did not discern a seared conscience in it. He's not my cuppa in every way, but he's undergone some nasty treatment for his views which, best I can tell, he's not reciprocated. I respect that, even if I'm not sure I follow the strategy. (I don't follow the "vote Trump because he's bad but at least we can do deals with him", either).
Being a Christian ain't easy in any age. But it's particularly not easy in an age when God is disciplining us with worthless leaders.
We have the leaders we deserve. God have mercy and let's pray for them. You can't vote your way out of a curse.
I've followed French for years and have to be honest that he lost my respect a long time ago. It's sad that the alt-right trolled him the way they did, but he's made many completely free choices for the dark side since then.
It's also sad that the alt-right and biblical Christianity have gotten in bed together. Some figures I respected five years ago have come out full throated for Trumpism as an identity, a tribe, and, most importantly, a criteria to bind the conscience. It's been, um, educational.
French is the unavoidable consequence of an Evangelical theology which believes a religious establishment is unbiblical, and that citizens have to be charmed into obeying God. That's most Evangelicals. He's the brightest they've got.
What have we got as an alternative? You can't beat something with nothing.
I'm doing my best!
Indeed. Let's all pitch in.
I agree with so much of this and it has been at times vindicating but also so sad to see what has transpired in the GOP. Cards on the table I did not vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020, in 2016 I voted libertarian (I've since become a Kirkian/Burkean conservative), and in 2020 I voted for Brian T. Carrol of the American Solidarity Party (I'm voting Sonski/Onak this year). Part of it may have been a kind of Keller-inspired "third-way-ism" (both in 2016 and 2020) and in 2020 I definitely was a french follower (though not a never-Trump guy), though like you I have similarly become disillusioned when it comes to Mr. French. But more poignantly I've always had the conviction that living in a representative democracy, we should be represented by our political candidates. Every year the candidates represent us less and less and we continue to hold our nose and vote because "at least they aren't the other guy". I understand that we need a balance of principle and practicality and that refusing to vote for one of the two viable candidates is not practical, but voting without principle has lead to this constant shift of the Overton window into degeneracy. I was legitimately saddened to see the removal of support for life and traditional family from the GOP platform but I cannot say I was surprised.
So I'm 100% with you, I will not sacrifice my Christian conservative values, and unless the republican party can produce a candidate that has earned my support I have no obligation to support them. I will vote for people who do represent me, who I can be proud to say I voted for. I personally hope that the majority of Christian conservatives vote similarly. The GOP needs to see that it cannot succeed in politics without us, and to secure our vote it actually has to represent us, the only thing that stops the Overton window from shifting is our planting our feet. All that to say I may be dreaming a different dream from the enthusiastic Trump supporter, but I think mine is beautiful too.
My take on changing the GOP. Voting for a candidate that checks most of the boxes of your main concerns won't cause the GOP to change its values to be more like yours. Sure, it will make you feel like you did the right thing, but it will cause the GOP to see that they need to be more like the party winning the most votes. That explains why it is moving the way it has been going. Voting is an extremely dull knife and it seems to me that transactional voting is the only meaningful vote unless the choices which have any chance of winning are clearly evil. How well do we know any candidate of our choice and how well their performance would be when in the compromising pressure cooker of office?
I definitely agree that voting is a dull knife if that's the only political engagement we have, and I agree that voting for a candidate that checks most of my boxes will only motivate the GOP in that they see that catering to me and people who believe the same way I do will get them more votes, and honestly that's not a problem in my eyes. I'm not requiring politicians to have virtue in and of themselves, any more than I'd expect the goods and services in a market economy to be provided to me out of the kindness of people's hearts. In both cases, political candidates representing me and producers selling me goods or services, the action is preformed out of rational self interest but it benefits us mutually. I'm under no illusion that the GOP holds my values because they believe in them, I'm sure some of them do, but as the betrayal of social conservatives this election has demonstrated (and as common sense dictates) they hold the values of whoever they think gives them the best chance at winning.
That being said there's a reason I compared candidate representation to production in a free market economy. In a free market the system works off of a persons rational self interest, they serve us not out of altruism but because it benefits them. However, this rational self interest also at a certain level undermines the free market. In order for the free market to work it requires institutions like the rule of law to ensure fair exchange, but while institutions are a necessary condition of free market economies they are not sufficient conditions. You can have as many rules on the books as you want but if there is no buy-in to the rule of law then it becomes just words. There are many cases where one's own rational self interest will dictate that one break the rule of law if it benefits them, and especially as markets get bigger and the cost for any given individual breaking the rules grows smaller (1 rule breaker in 10,000 hurts almost nobody, whereas 1 in 10 is a serious problem). So there are 2 solutions, the socialist/interventionist solution of trying to regulate the behaviors from the top down, or the cultural solution of changing the culture from the bottom up. The socialist/interventionist solution fails every time because it opposes people's rational self interest and tries to force them to fight against it which no sinful man can do for long, not to mention it stifles the workings of the free market causing everyone to lose the benefits brought about through the free workings of rationally self-interested people. Inculcating a pre-rational cultural buy-in to the rule of law changes the rational calculus ensuring greater fidelity to the institutions, thus allowing the market to flourish. How is this relevant to representation in politics?
Well in the same way when we see the GOP abandoning our values there are similarly 2 options, we can cast protest votes but if this is all we do it's akin to the socialist/interventionist solution outlined in the market case, it's a dull knife as you said. So what we need is a cultural solution, we need to inculcate pre-rational values that change the rational calculus of our representatives. The only way we can really do that is through raising and educating a just and virtuous people who will oppose abortion and support traditional marriage for example. And on the other side of that the cultural inculcation of such values would hopefully also increase the tendency for our politicians to stand on principle and not compromise values whenever it's politically expedient. That being said this is a generation long endeavor and requires significant buy-in to even attempt. All I can do is try to faithfully raise up children and educate people to do the right thing and hopefully before I die I can see some fruit from that endeavor. But I'm under no illusions that these problems have a quick fix. It took a long time to get this far down the pit. It'll require a long view and many people serving faithfully day by day to dig us out, but God willing we'll get there. Or his kingdom will come, whichever comes first.
So, all that being said my third party vote may not accomplish much on it's own, a dull knife indeed, but that's not where my hopes and efforts are truly focused. If it was the only thing I were doing it'd be pitiful, but as far as it goes my third party protest vote when seen against the greater plan is hopefully one of thousands of cuts that eventually force the elephant of the GOP back onto the right track, or leads to something new and wonderful taking it's place.
I'm a Reagan Republican, mourning the loss of Old Conservatism. I don't view voting as a "sacrament," but I do consider it a moral act for which I bear responsibility. And I can't in good conscience cast a vote for either Trump or Harris.
Another defense of French's voting decision: it's not cynical in the least. He honestly believes it might help resurrect the GOP, and, thus, resurrect the possibility of someday voting for good men again. Not exactly an evil intent.
I'm not clever enough to know whether it will work, or not. But one thing I understand from experience:
Stupid should hurt.
When there are zero penalties for avarice, lying, etc. guess what multiplies?
I fail to understand why those who want to save our nation from progressives dont realize that we will be voting for an entire administration (3,000+ people) .Obviously the person who will be president is important, but the people he brings with him are essential to what he will do. The progressive bunch will weaken our nation!
Here's Jesus teaching his disciples a wise, transactional teaching: Luke 16: Jesus told this story to his disciples: “There was a certain rich man who had a manager handling his affairs. One day a report came that the manager was wasting his employer’s money. 2 So the employer called him in and said, ‘What’s this I hear about you? Get your report in order, because you are going to be fired.’
3 “The manager thought to himself, ‘Now what? My boss has fired me. I don’t have the strength to dig ditches, and I’m too proud to beg. 4 Ah, I know how to ensure that I’ll have plenty of friends who will give me a home when I am fired.’
5 “So he invited each person who owed money to his employer to come and discuss the situation. He asked the first one, ‘How much do you owe him?’ 6 The man replied, ‘I owe him 800 gallons of olive oil.’ So the manager told him, ‘Take the bill and quickly change it to 400 gallons.[a]’
7 “‘And how much do you owe my employer?’ he asked the next man. ‘I owe him 1,000 bushels of wheat,’ was the reply. ‘Here,’ the manager said, ‘take the bill and change it to 800 bushels.[b]’
8 “The rich man had to admire the dishonest rascal for being so shrewd. And it is true that the children of this world are more shrewd in dealing with the world around them than are the children of the light. 9 Here’s the lesson: Use your worldly resources to benefit others and make friends. Then, when your possessions are gone, they will welcome you to an eternal home.[c]