Trump v. Clinton is often framed in terms of the lesser-evil principle. I think that’s a valid principle.
However, I think the principle becomes worthless if it never bottoms out. If there’s no threshold below which a candidate, however atrocious, can ever be out-of-bounds, then the comparison is morally compromised beyond recognition.
For instance, some people say not voting for Trump is a vote for Clinton. In a sense.
But suppose you had a choice between Stalin and Mao. Suppose you concluded that Mao was marginally better than Stalin (or vice versa). But when two candidates are as bad as Stalin and Mao (in my hypothetical), is the lesser-evil principle even germane anymore?
What if you said, not voting for Mao is a vote for Stalin. Even if there’s a sense in which that’s the case, so what?
At some point Christians simply have to throw up our hands and admit: we are not of this world. We do the best we can here, especially with regard to the GC, but we simply don't belong. And especially with the GC, we proclaim most accurately when we can point to the other side of the resurrection as though we belong there. And so God is faithful to remove options that keep us from this.
ReplyDeleteI would maybe consider Trump if I at least thought he would nominate good SCOTUS judges. But there is no reason to believe that he would even do that.
ReplyDeleteHe has said he would nominate conservative judges.
DeleteHe's also said his far left, proabortion sister would make a "phenomenal" Supreme Court justice. He's taken just about every side of every issue.
DeleteHe's also said things that indicate he has no idea what a judge is supposed to do (e.g., sign bills? lead investigations?). So I have no reason to believe that Trump has any idea what a conservative judge is. I'm sure Trump has never even heard of textualism and probably thinks it has something to do with teens and their phones.
DeleteHe has promised to provide a list of judges that he would vote for:
DeleteIn another unprecedented move, Trump said he plans to announce a list of 10 to 12 judges from which he would pick to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court to allay concerns from conservatives that he wouldn’t choose someone to their liking.
“I’m getting names. The Federalist people. Some very good people. The Heritage Foundation,” Trump said. “I’m going to announce that these are the judges, in no particular order, that I’m going to put up. And I’m going to guarantee it. I’m going to tell people. Because people are worried that, oh, maybe he’ll put the wrong judge in.”
I think there is a lot of early things he has said that has become exaggerated, and I think this is an effort on his part to really begin to focus on actual policies. Whether this effort is too little too late on his part, is another question.
John, Trump has zero credibility. He constantly makes contradictory statements. Responding on the fly. Pandering to the crowd.
DeleteNot a great analogy. As bad as Clinton and Trump are, and let's make no mistake they're both *very* bad POTUS candidates, they're not mass murderers.
ReplyDeleteWith the possible exception of Clinton's staunch complicity with and support of the abortuary industry.
That's not the analogy. It's not a direct comparison between Clinton/Trump and Mao/Stalin. Rather, it's a comparison between Mao and Stalin to the make the point that if the alternatives come down to two horrendous candidates, then even if one is marginally better than another, that's not a reason to vote for him. The lesser-evil principle needs to have a moral floor. It can't descend indefinitely, IMO.
DeleteThanks. Personally I can't and won't vote for either Trump or Clinton.
Delete