The Pilgrim Patriot Blog will Soon be a Thing of the Past

 

I started blogging a little over four years ago in outrage over Vice Presidential candidate Mike Pence's attempt to reduce Christianity to a prop for a political campaign. I intended the blog to be a model and a workspace for Christian engagement with community and politics. I am sure that I have not done that perfectly, but I do feel that I have been pretty fair to both main parties. (I even criticized former President Obama for doing something similar to what Pence did to earn condemnation.) I have also tried with some success to give balanced and sympathetic coverage to causes in private and public life.

I now feel that it is time for me to move on to other projects. I will be making changes to my brand as a result. Rather than having one venue devoted to both political and civil society issues, I plan to start a venue dedicated specifically to politics. I still expect to publish information and opinion about civil society matters at times, but I intend to keep it separate from my next platform (whether it's a blog, vlog, podcast or whatever I end up deciding on.)

Another difference in my next project is that it will be focused on western Washington politics. It will naturally also look at statewide elections (including presidential elections) but it will cover those with an emphasis on the views and interests of western Washington. This shift in focus is a direct response to the most recent developments in the federal government and in the Republican Party. I feel that it is time to heighten our emphasis on state and local politics as political coalitions begin to realign.

The reason I am focusing on the western part of the state is that that is where I live. The geographical, cultural, and political features of east and west are so different that some have actually been making noise about splitting the state into two states. I am by no means endorsing this campaign: I am merely trying to take politics and society as I find them rather than as I wish they were. I live in the most populous, urban, and metropolitan part of the state. Although conservative and even centrist politics face great challenges in such an environment, I feel the appropriate response is to view those challenges as a gift and not a burden.

I hope that in this new project, I will be a model for others as I have already been trying to do. I would like to see others write about and get involved in their own state and local politics. Citizens of California and Nevada may want to imitate my approach and zero in on a particular region of the state they live in. Even if the division of the states into smaller states is not the hope or expectation, this type of focus may make party politics more responsive and more effective.

I will continue to write and think about faith and biblical doctrine in this new endeavor. I invite you to pray for me that I will be faithful and that my work would be excellent even above and beyond my ability.

During the coming year, I hope to do a lot of work offline. You will hear about that, as well. I hope you will join me in this journey. Please let me know if you have any advice or suggestions as I begin this new chapter. Thank you for reading and listening.

More Correspondence: Trusting the Process vs. Defending the System

 

Here is another redacted piece of correspondence since the election, with my reply. It was in regard to an article I shared.

"Thanks Owen,

I'm not thrilled with our president's response to the election. I'm not, nor was I ever, an avid Trump supporter (as is the case with most of the people I know who reluctantly voted for him). While I am sure that there was voter fraud (both on the left and the right), I've never been convinced that it was widespread and certainly not significant enough to overturn the several states that would be required to flip the election outcome. 

If I have any complaint about the response of those on the left, it's that they aren't patiently letting the courts do their job. While Trump seems to be simply doing what he can to turn the election results in his favor, I wish that those on the left would let the courts prove him wrong rather than assuming that he is making things up. I have a fair amount of trust in our courts and believe that if a legitimate case can be made for fraud in any state that the courts will see it and address it appropriately."

My reply:

"Hi Y,

Thanks for your response. 

I share your confidence in the courts to determine what allegations of fraud have merit. Of course, part of trusting the process is trusting the courts to determine whether a case is weak or frivolous, as they have determined to be the case with almost every one of Trump's election cases. I think the reason that Trump's critics (including center-right ones) tend to have a problem with allowing Trump's legal battles to go unrebuked outside of court is that these cases are part of a broader political campaign of disinformation and intimidation. People's lives even now are in danger just for holding public office or taking a job and for fulfilling their job responsibilities. This is intolerable.

At this point, I think that the best arguments for Trump's critics to keep their mouths shut where he has not are going to be arguments of tactics, not principle or even strategy. The GOP and the conservative movement have a major problem on their hands, and it is difficult to imagine a serious conservatism that continues much longer to share a political party with Trump.

One of the challenges of our form of government is that we can not banish or execute people just because they are slimy or dangerous. That is why the Civil War was fought for the purpose of saving the Union. It's why people can still publicly embrace Nazi or Communist ideas, the Klan, or Joe Mccarthy. It's why I don't think that criminalizing Trump or his followers is going to fix the problems that he has created or exacerbated. We are probably going to have to live with Trump and Trumpism for a while.

I do think that Trump needs broad political and, yes, religious competition. I think that serious and mature Christians should be part of that competition. Only with vigorous and sustained opposition can Trump's challenge to the American experiment be thwarted and prevented from evolving into something more dangerous. It is even to be hoped that he and his followers will eventually become more responsible stakeholders in American politics.

That is where I am, and I think it is where we are. I think that it is important to not be a Trump fan and to not believe everything that Trump says. I think, however, that it is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that it is enough for Christians or Republicans to merely keep some amount of distance from the president. We have to go farther than that to avoid being complicit in his dishonesty and wrongdoing.

I appreciate your sharing your thoughts. We should chat again soon.

Warmly,

Owen"

Preparing for Communion During a Political Dispute

 When I recently posted dismissively on Facebook about recent claims by the president's legal team, someone told me: "You need to repent of your sins, please." When I pressed him for an explanation, he claimed that Bible prophecy promises four more years of Trump and Pence in the White House.

Spiritual significance of political choices

These were hardly the most serious challenges I have received to my beliefs or actions in and following the recent election, but they highlight an important aspect of where we are right now: our political choices and relationships have profound spiritual implications. Both serious and unserious people have made strong claims about right and wrong, truth and falsehood relating to this specific election season and particularly the presidential election. Many of these claims are made with an appeal to the Bible.

It is fairly common knowledge that the Christian life ought to be characterized by both faith and repentance: that is, believing God's Word about salvation (and in general) and turning from sins to God. The time of preparation for Communion is a time for particular focus on these responsibilities: it calls us to examine not only our relationship with God, but also our relationships with fellow-Christians. In my church, Communion is observed every week. As a part of the weekly preparation, I have to examine my life, including the political part. I have been thinking about this, and I felt that others may benefit from my thoughts.

The dangers of political discussion

Political discussion is a minefield, especially on social media. Some people have to engage in this discussion regularly, and hopefully they realize how important it is to be careful. Others may feel inclined to get involved in political controversies even against their better judgment. Both groups should consider how to engage in the right way and how to take corrective action when they have failed to engage correctly.

When we enter seasons of self-examination in the middle of a political dispute, it is important to understand that not all political disputes are of the same kind. Some are mainly differences of opinion about prudential issues, and the participants' commitment to truth and to right treatment of other people do not come into serious question. Someone who is engaging in such discussions thoughtfully and peacefully does not have cause for great concern about where they are personally. Such discussions can continue without interruption or hindrance to relationships with God and others.

There are other matters that involve evaluation of the participants' faith or character, but even these are not all on the same level. For example, take the command to not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. Most Christians would not understand that to be prohibiting Christians from being involved in politics, in which cooperation with non-Christians is usually necessary. Most would, however, see it as placing some limitations on the degree of partnership with unbelievers in politics. Between the two extremes of boycotting politics and making no distinction in politics between believers and unbelievers there is a great deal of liberty.

Now, it is very likely that one Christian will think that another Christian is approaching too closely to one of these extremes. The Christian with the complaint will have to decide whether to make an issue of it and, if so, how far to go. This will depend on how sure the first Christian is of his or her objection and on how major of an issue he or she thinks it is. The line between an issue of personal liberty and an issue of character or truthfulness is not always clear.

If the first Christian does voice an objection, the second Christian must decide how to respond. The second Christian may or may not come to agree with the first Christian on the issue at hand. If he does not agree, he will have to decide how to deal with the disagreement. He may decide to change his behavior in order to not harm his relationship with the other Christian. He can do this if he feels that his prior course of action or argument is one that he is free to either pursue or not. His deference in this case is not an admission of wrong but a concession for the sake of peace. Such a concession will not be enough to end every controversy, but it should be enough to end most.

If, on the other hand, the second Christian is unable or unwilling to change, the first Christian has a choice. He or she must decide whether this is an issue of faith and obedience so clear and major that it requires a line to be drawn or whether it is a matter of each individual's personal relationship with God, for which each will give an account at the last day. In other words, is it a liberty issue?

At any point in this process, either party may commit sins against the other that do not flow directly from the main issue. These may need to be addressed, as well. The timing for addressing them is a matter for discretion.

Now when one comes to prayer or Communion, he is commanded to examine his relationship with other believers. If the individual has sinned against another, he must set it right. If the individual has been sinned against (in his or her judgment), the individual must address that either by releasing it to God or by challenging the offender over the offense.

The dangers of political parties and candidates

This is the broad outline. Now let's complicate it a little. Many controversies in any election (and probably the most interesting ones in this past election) center not on policy per se, but on differences over the proper response to the lies and sins of a candidate or party. In fact, the controversies can touch on the faults of multiple candidates and parties. The nature of the controversy will depend on whether the disputants agree on where a political actor has lied or sinned.

If I call something a lie or a sin (maybe even a crime), I may get various kinds of pushback. Someone might say, "That is not a lie or a sin," or they might say, "We don't have enough information yet to say that they are guilty of a lie or sin." Sometimes, people even seem to be confused in their own minds about which of these two positions they are taking.

These claims are different from ones that center on the context of an admitted lie or sin. Others will argue, "Even if/though that is true, XYZ by the other party or candidate is worse." Or they may say, "There is no significant difference between what this party or candidate is doing and what the other is doing," implying that the criticism is not useful for determining an appropriate course of action. On the other hand, they may argue that I am giving the lie or sin too much or too little weight compared to a similar lie or sin on the other side.

In evaluating these criticisms, I have to determine who between us has learned and studied enough to come to an educated opinion. One or each of us may need to continue the discussion in order to come to a better educated opinion. I must also seek to determine which of us has made the best use of the knowledge and skills that he has. If one of us should know better than to take the position he does, that is a different matter than simply not knowing any better. In addition, I must decide how sure I am of my own conclusion. And finally, I must determine how important it is for each of us to reach the correct conclusion: is this something on which we may agree to disagree?

Self-examination in a dispute about parties and candidates

Now, let us say that in the course of this controversy I come to prayer or to Communion. I should not stay away from special seasons of prayer or Communion: I may, however, need to address a controversy first. I may even need to delay my prayer time in order to address an urgent problem.

A problem is urgent if it requires immediate action. I may need to immediately confess that I have said or done something wrong. I may need to immediately confront the other person about something I believe they were wrong to do or say.

However, some problems just take time. I may need to continue with prayer and Communion and then pick up the discussion afterward where I left off. I may need to take a break and come back to it. Or I may need to drop it altogether. I have to make these decisions prayerfully and thoughtfully, always seeking to understand and apply the Word of God with the help of the Holy Spirit.

Concern and hope in a developing political realignment

We are in a time politically that can test family and spiritual ties. It is important to recognize both the need for those ties and the seriousness of the challenges that they face. In my part of the church, there is deep and abiding conviction of the evil of abortion and of sexual immorality, as well as of the evil of policies that encourage or enforce them. There is at the same time a growing but still lesser (and in my opinion inadequate) estimate of the evil of the words and actions of our current president. We are experiencing a breakup of the Republican Party and a re-alignment of American politics driven largely though not entirely by the president.

There is still room in this environment for differences over strategy, but that room is narrowing quickly. Some Republicans and former Republicans will be shocked to find that former allies may consider them as bad as or worse than Democrats who embrace abortion on demand and value sexual autonomy more than religious liberty or civic virtue. They will be stunned that this evaluation will be based on their embrace or rejection of soon-to-be-former President Trump. Some will be horrified at being told that they are on the wrong side not only of Biblical revelation or the Constitution, but of common grace, natural law, and the best of philosophy. I am not shocked. I am grieved. 

But although I know what is coming and have experienced some of it already, I have hope. Out of these deep differences, we may learn to think better, live better, and communicate better with those we disagree with politically. As we grow, we will realize more and more how much we depend on those ties and on seasons of devotion.

The President is a Collective Action Problem

 We are now ten days past the election and counting. We are sixty-eight days from the presidential inauguration and fifty-three days from the runoff election in Georgia that will determine control of the Senate. The president, though he has no legal case for challenging the presidential election results, insists that he is the winner and that the election was rigged. The recount in Georgia is a formality and is unlikely to change the outcome. The president has failed so far to provide support for Biden's transition, although this support would not hinder the president's mostly failing and unserious court battles.

What the president hopes to achieve is the subject of rumor and speculation, and what the Republican Party hopes to achieve other than surviving this president and keeping the Senate is also unclear. Some Republican influencers and elected officials support the president's project, some oppose, and some are trying to be non-committal. The Vice President accepted with grim humor the role that is assigned to him in this farce, and Senate Leader McConnell decided that corporate media was an easier target than the president. The official website of the Republican Party is projecting the GOP's own dysfunction on the Democratic Party, which is handling its mixed success as well as might be expected, while the president's most colorful self-proclaimed legal representative (see the president's statement) is on Twitter embracing conspiracy theorists, anticipating the "failure" of American institutions, and proposing a new political party.

The fact of the matter is that the Republican Party faces a dilemma with this unserious president. On the one hand, he has brought new voters to the Republican ticket in 2016 and 2020 from groups that the party needs in order to succeed. On the other, the president is less popular with voters than Republicans down-ballot and, crucially, than his Democratic opponent. The president's choice to play chicken with an American presidential election is not in the interests of the party or the nation, although it is popular with some Republican or Republican-leaning voters. The credible threat that Republicans considering opposing the president face is that he will play chicken with them, too.

In the case of someone in the president's position, extreme care will be needed in attempting to influence him to change his behavior. Sticks alone will not do. Carrots will also be needed. The value of allowing or requiring him to face consequences for his actions after he leaves office must be weighed against the additional harm he may be willing to do while in office with that threat hanging over him. Blunt words, while proportionate to his actions, may not achieve needed results.

The Republican Party should consult its own interests and the national interest and put a stop to the president's attacks on American institutions and fellow-Republicans. It must actively bring to bear the necessary positive and negative incentives to induce the president to accept the election result sooner rather than later. And it must above all not allow Trump to become president again in 2024. His age and condition alone may prevent that, but the Republican Party must not take chances.

I Have a Grievance Against the Left

 In a battle of World War I, the imaginative French general Ferdinand Foch is said to have stated, "My centre is yielding. My right is retreating. Situation excellent. I am attacking." During the recent election, I baffled many friends and acquaintances on Left and Right by voting Democrat at the top of the ticket and Republican at the bottom. "Don't you know how evil the other side is? Don't you know how dangerous they are? How could you?"

It has been no easier since the election, as I have continued to sharply criticize the president's claims and behavior, while still trying to support down-ballot Republicans in run-off elections. The Georgia candidates did not return the love, instead joining the president's attacks on the Republican-run presidential election. As much as I admire Majority Leader McConnell, I can not now separate the president from the candidates McConnell needs to keep his majority. My electoral strategy, which seemed so promising just after election day, is in disarray.

What am I to do in this situation, in which the presidential candidate I dislike least is likely to win with at best a compromised opposition due to the mischief of the incumbent whom I dislike most? What am I to do when the president and many of his supporters give no indication that they might acknowledge the legitimacy of the election and of his opponent's presidency? What am I to do with threats of violence all around? I give thanks for a target-rich environment, and I attack! 

There is plenty of blame to go around for this mess, but only one faction leader has a vested interest in fixing the immediate problem: President-elect Biden. He ran on cooling things down (no one seriously believes that President Trump intended to do that). Biden has been forced to surround himself with people who have been pouring gasoline on the flames during the two previous administrations, which means it will be necessary but difficult for him to distinguish himself from them.

If he wants advice from a cautious supporter, here is mine: look in the mirror! There is a simple cause and a simple solution to most of the fear, hostility, and distrust of him and his party. Democrats like to try to find structural solutions to behavioral problems, but they have so far lacked the imagination or the courage to fix a structural problem that they caused over a century ago. Most of the heated rhetoric on both sides is due to the Democrats' determination to defend their wrong decision and to the Republicans' refusal to accept it.

In the annals of bigotry and racism, Woodrow Wilson is a major figure. His disdain for the United States Constitution was matched by his sympathy for the Confederate cause in the Civil War and for segregation afterwards. His Living Document theory of the Constitution, which is now bizarrely associated with the cause of Civil Rights, was initially used to protect segregation. Originalists are now unfairly forced to try to prove that their philosophy could have achieved the same results that people like from the Living Document theory. 

The arrogance behind the Living Document theory was epitomized in the language of Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, when he insinuated that it was necessary for the courts to correct the Constitution, selectively ignoring what came before the 14th Amendment, because of the alleged moral inferiority of the nation's founders. This is a godlike claim that minimizes the effectiveness of both persuasion and civil disobedience in a representative form of government. If the laws were defective, why might not the voters change them? If they were unwilling to change them, why might they not be made willing by a sizeable minority's refusal to obey the law, rather than being overruled by the bad faith of public servants who were entrusted with the upholding of the law? And why on earth would a self-respecting people consider the Bill of Rights, the Fourteenth Amendment, and other improvements to be departures from the original design rather than developments of it?

The spirit of the Living Document theory is the spirit of lawlessness. It is a fitting symbol of all that is evil and destructive in human society and government. Just as no human being is able to completely repudiate God's moral government of the universe, so no citizen or public official is able to completely repudiate the laws of the land. Where the mischief occurs is in twisting laws and in picking and choosing which laws one will obey. Even treason itself is an attempt to change the government, not to change all of the laws.

We are in the process of a transition from a Living Document theory governing the judiciary to original intent, including the intent of constitutional amendment, governing it. Joe Biden, if his election is confirmed by the normal process, should commit to continuing that transition to completion rather than to trying to stop it. This fulfillment of his oath of office would earn him the confidence of the American people.

The Constitution is designed to thwart the ambitions of dangerous men, and it is still strong after more than a century of serious attacks. However, it is not indestructible. The actions that winners and losers take in this and subsequent elections will either prolong or shorten its rule. It has always been so.

The Republican Party Must Reject Donald Trump's Leadership

 Set aside the question of whether a vote for Biden in this or any situation is moral or prudent: Donald J. Trump is gravely unqualified to lead the nation or the Republican Party. Republicans who rejected his nomination in 2016 and reject his incumbency in 2020 do so for good cause. We face a moment of decision: will the Republican Party reject Donald Trump, or must the United States reject the Republican Party?

The words have been loud: Donald Trump is a threat to national security, to the Constitution, to the nation's citizens, to the unborn, to America's allies around the world, and to the Republican Party. Action must be louder. I urge all Republicans in this election to vote for Biden or abstain from voting for a main party candidate. There is no future for a Republican Party led by Donald Trump.

If Donald Trump wins the election or is allowed to run for the Republican nomination in a future election, there is only one correct response: leave the party to Trump and his supporters. Form a new party that will be not the American Solidarity Party, the Constitution Party, or the Libertarian Party, but the anti-Republican Party. This party must court Republicans who have opposed Trump's candidacy. It must court Majority Leader McConnell. It must court Senators Romney and Sasse and others in the party who have distanced themselves from Trump. It must take down the Republican Party as swiftly as possible and forge a better competitor to the Democratic Party.

People may not understand our words, but they can not misunderstand our actions if they are decisive and forceful. This is the last chance.

Don't Ask for Permission to Vote for Someone

 Thursday night was the presidential debate. It was the last major opportunity for the main parties' candidates to make their case to the American people. Voting has already started, and I have seen posts from some of my Facebook friends indicating that they have voted. 

The Psychology of Voting

I am sure that many people are eager for this election to be over. We know that we are unlikely to have a clear winner on election night, but there is a certain finality about the act of voting itself. Apart from practical considerations, for some, the psychological relief that comes from having put the decision in the past means that there is less pressure in the future to analyze or argue about the consequences of that decision.

For others, psychology works in the other direction. Uncertainty over whether new information could come out that would indicate a different decision or difficulty in analyzing the information already available can motivate people to put off the decision as long as possible. People may also be encouraged by their friends' decisions either to act right away or to wait.

Time to Vote?

I am personally in a good position to choose my own timing for voting. Washington State uses mail-in ballots, which can be sent by post office or left in convenient drop boxes. My vote for some down-ballot offices might make a difference, but the state's vote for president is a forgone conclusion. Others in different circumstances might have more factors to consider in their vote, or their timing might depend partly on election security and access conditions. I don't have to worry about those for myself.

It is without compulsion, then, that I have concluded the time has come for me to vote. I don't think that there is likely to be any news before election day that would change my vote, and I feel that I owe it to people who may be swayed by my arguments to be decisive now. Whether they end up agreeing with my argument or not, at least they won't have to worry too much about me changing my mind about my argument. My arguments from this point forward will not be for the purpose of making up my own mind, but for persuading others.

Vote with Confidence

I will circle back in the near future to discussion with friends about my voting strategy. I am sure there will continue to be objections, but I feel confident in my position based on my study and discussion so far. That is the kind of confidence I want to encourage others to have: not to agree with my vote necessarily, but to have the confidence in your own judgment to make a decision when the time for a decision comes. 

Once you have prayed for wisdom, done your homework, and listened to what others have to say, you don't necessarily have to wait for others to agree with you before you decide what you are going to do. That may never happen, and the time for action could pass before you feel fully prepared. Analyze, but don't let analysis paralyze you. If action is necessary or even probably necessary, be sure that your timing is as accurate as you can make it. If you are prone to be hasty, you may need to hold yourself back. But if your temptation is to delay or to fail to act where action is needed, prepare yourself to take action within the appropriate time frame.

My Decision

I will vote around noon today for Biden and for Republicans down-ballot unless something drastically changes by then. There is only one thing I can think of that would make me change my mind, and I will come to that in a moment. I have outlined my strategic reasons to vote for Biden and not to vote for Democrats down-ballot. I can elaborate on it further, but I do not feel that is necessary right now. Rather, I want to explain how I am resolving my remaining doubts in favor of an immediate vote.

There are two unknowns that have made me hesitate so far. One is the allegations printed in the New York Post. They may be accurate, and the evidence against Biden himself may be as damning as some are saying. That would be disqualifying. Yet what if this October surprise is a great big nothingburger? That means that voters are being distracted and disoriented less than two weeks before the election. Can you imagine a more effective way of deterring people from voting for Biden?

I am taking my cue on this from Trump's performance in the debate. He did not act like someone who was preparing to bury his opponent with damning opposition research. He acted like someone who was trying to confuse and distract. I think that the most rational course for voters to take at this point is to ignore the allegations against Biden.

My other hesitation was uncertainty over Biden's vision. Does he plan to be the most Progressive candidate since FDR, or does he want de-escalate and reconcile? It is hard to see how he can do both. It is hard to see him both energizing the Democratic Party base and really caring what Republicans want.

Now we have news of an assassination plot against Biden from back in May. The Democrats are on high alert. It is starting to look less likely that anyone on that side is going to be eager to reach out to Republicans. Suspicion and rigidity are more likely. High energy on the Democratic side may be met by low energy from the Republican side, as most must realize that this crazed plot is the natural consequence of the president's rhetoric and tactics. Down-ballot Republican candidates may be hit hardest of all.

Should we, then, abandon Republican attacks on Trump and Republican outreach to the Democrats? On the contrary, nothing but these efforts are likely to convince the Democrats that the violent criminal danger they face from Trump is not representative of the Republican Party. Republicans can de-escalate at a point where Democrats can not without help. This is why, even as hostility against down-ballot Republicans and Republican policy preferences may be about to reach a peak, I think that gestures of goodwill are likely to be the most effective means of averting the danger. I believe it is time to stop being observers and start being actors.

Why I am not Happy

That is the culmination of my argument for voting for Biden (though not for down-ballot Democrats), and I think it is a good one. I think it might even be a moral duty. I certainly see it that way for myself. However, I will not condemn other Christians who don't vote for president or who vote differently. I won't condemn them even though I believe every word I have said about President Trump. Some may wonder why I would not, but I think others know: it is because the Democratic Party is still evil.

There is perhaps no greater proof of the evil of the Democratic Party than its continued support of abortion on demand.  Fifty years of institutional opposition to Roe's attempt to end the abortion debate have not convinced the Democratic Party that it is wrong. Even in yielding to the attacks on the perverse process of Roe, Biden and the Democratic Party seek to uphold the heart of Roe by codifying Roe in real instead of fake law. This incremental progress of moving decisions on abortion back to the legislature where they belong is poisoned by the determination to continue the disfiguration of federal law that Roe started.

Although I plan to vote for Biden, I will not vote for him with enthusiasm. Donald Trump's corruption of the legislative process is worse, but not by much. Only the supreme importance of the legislative branch for setting policy could arguably offset the harm of the executive actions on abortion planned by Biden and Harris and preserve a narrow path to abolition of abortion in spite of a Democratic White House.

What Could Make me Change my Decision Today

We have been opposing abortion since before the United States was a nation or Europeans ever set foot on this continent. We will continue to oppose abortion after the United States ceases to exist, if abortion continues that long. As long as we have a voice in government, government policy will be an indispensable tool in that opposition.

Donald Trump has said that he doesn't think Roe is on the ballot in this election. I am putting Roe on the ballot, even if it means voting for Biden. There is only one thing that I think can change my mind about voting for Biden: if before noon Pacific Time today, President Trump announces that he is going to pursue the overturning of Roe through legislation, I will tear up my ballot and throw it in the trash. I have not spent this much energy arguing for abolishing abortion through incremental legislation to shoot myself in the foot now.

The elegant simplicity of the pro-life moral argument ensures that it will endure.