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.

From My Correspondence: "Stunned and Utterly Surprised"

 Since my endorsement of Joe Biden earlier this month, I have received quite a bit of pushback. Some of it has been public, and some has been private. I recently received a message on Facebook from an old friend. She said,

"Owen, I normally would never mention anything about politics and candidates running in an election to anyone except family. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion as they vote or endorse a candidate. But today I have been quite burdened because of some comments in something you recently posted. You said you were voting for Joe Biden. I was stunned and utterly surprised. I am not sure how a Christian could back someone that not only backs godless agendas but also attacks those opposed to those agendas. How can you believe that it is in the best interest of our nation for a utterly godless man to be our President? Do you not think he will continue on in the ways of the Obama administration and pull our country down both morally and economically? Do you not see him as a puppet to those that desire only wickedness? 

I know President Trump is not a perfect man. But he has accomplished many things in these past four years. He has sought advice from godly men and a Vice President that though he is Roman Catholic seems to make some profession of faith. 

Who you vote for is a personal decision. It should also be backed by some definite conviction. I know some dislike Trump almost with a hatred. But, at his worst, Trump is a better choice for our great nation than Biden is at his best. I trust you have sought advice and counsel from others that are wise and knowledgeable. I do ask you to pray before your open Bible and ask the Lord to direct you in this decision. What would a good and gracious God want for this nation? A man that backs murdering the unborn, sides with those that go against God’s word when it comes to sexuality, a man that is a liar and a thief? Think about it and pray. I know others have probably said the same things to you. But my burdened heart felt the need to just bring these thoughts before you. You don’t need or have to respond to this for I am not one to get into political conversations to cause enmity. Im simply asking you to pray and ask the Lord to give direction and a humble heart. 

Love to your family. 

Mrs. X"

I replied:

"Dear Mrs. X,

Thank you for sharing your concern with me. I understand not normally talking about politics outside of family. There are so many less controversial things that people can connect over, and it is easy for feelings about politics to put relationships at risk. It must have taken a lot of courage for you to bring your concerns to me, and I appreciate your sensitivity in expressing them.

I have written here, here, and here with my thoughts about the election and about voting for Biden. If you have not read each of these, they may give you some perspective on where I am coming from.

I definitely agree that Biden's role in the Obama administration is reason for concern. The Obama administration was cruel, corrupt, and lawless, and a Biden administration may well be also. I don't know that I would characterize Biden as a puppet, but he definitely has some evil views and influences. He is not known for being especially honest.

I think where we differ most is in our views on President Trump. I do not see him as a good man. I do not see him as a safe man for Christians or for the nation. And I do not agree with your assessment that "at his worst, Trump is a better choice for our great nation than Biden is at his best." At worst, I think that Biden might be as bad as Trump. That is more a reflection on Trump's character and competence than Biden's.

In 2015 and 16, alert and informed Christians sounded the alarm about Trump. They warned about his casual dishonesty, his racism, his admiration for authoritarian governments, his cruelty and disrespect, and his lack of attention to the information a president needs to do his job. In some ways, the president has outperformed expectations, but overall what we saw was what we got.

For some reason, older Christians tended to be less able to see Trump's flaws and their importance than younger Christians. This is incredibly discouraging for these young Christians, many of whom have already developed the same moral revulsion and distress for the Left's agenda as older Christians tend to have. We don't want to be seen as supporting the things that we hate, and we love our fathers, mothers, and church and ministry leaders. We want to be able to rely on their judgment, including their moral judgment. Many of us feel less confident in that judgment now, especially when it comes to politics.

This is not a new problem. I know a dear brother who is a teacher at a Christian college. He grew up under Carl Macintyre's ministry, and he was so incensed by Macintyre's approach to politics that he avoided politics for his whole life. The first time he voted, he voted against Donald Trump in 2016. He finally found a politician who revolted him more than politics itself. This avoidance of politics among young Christians is a danger that Russell Moore, head of the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Committee has been warning about since the 2016 election.

I did not vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. I actually had a friendly debate by video chat over which third-party or independent candidate was most worthy of support. I can see someone doing that in 2020. I just happen to feel that the moral and strategic arguments for supporting Biden, who has a chance of beating Trump, are better. I think that Biden has some good ideas and qualities, and this election is a rare opportunity to give them closer consideration. Opposing him or trying to change his mind on some policies after endorsing him would definitely have risks, but it seems likely to me to present legitimate opportunities that would outweigh the risks.

Of course Trump could still win, and we would have to adjust again to that reality. I would rather adjust to it as someone who stands on principle than as someone who is willing to pay almost any price for access and favor. Win or lose, I hope that frank words between friends and fellow-Christians would not harm our relationships.

The Left hates Trump just as, with important exceptions, it hates you and me. Sooner or later, there will be meaningful retaliation for actual and perceived wrongs against the Left and those it cares about. When that time comes, I would rather suffer as a Christian, if that is the will of God, than as an evildoer. I feel that if I suffered for voting for Trump, I would be suffering as an evildoer. Whether or not you agree, I hope you can understand.

Please give my regards to your family.

Love in Christ,

Owen

Should Pro-Life Evangelicals Unite Behind a Candidate or Party?

 There is a minority of voices under the umbrella of Evangelicalism that seems to view Evangelicalism much the way that Anarchist Libertarians view government. If you start a question with "should Evangelicals," you don't have to finish the question to know that their answer will be "no." Now if you said "will Evangelicals" or "did Evangelicals" do a certain thing, you could answer that question by taking a poll, just as you could with a demographic like women or blue-collar workers (though there could be more disagreement over the working definition of "Evangelical" than with the other examples). As for treating Evangelicals as a tribe with a meaningful identity and community outside of ecclesiastical connection, however, these people would be deeply skeptical of such a suggestion.

Though hardliners on this issue of association may be rare, their concerns are less so. Even some celebrity pastors and influencers who do not shy away from the spotlight stress the importance of church community and affiliation. They warn about the dangers of prioritizing alternative communities of belief and belonging. Any effort to influence Evangelicals directly through popular appeals or parachurch organizations even on major issues is likely to get some pushback, and rightly so.

When Church Support is not Enough

When it comes to social and political issues, however, there are some important questions that churches will not or should not take positions on. There are some cooperative efforts that churches should not endorse or forbid. For example, it would generally be inappropriate for a church to endorse or oppose a political candidate. However, it would also generally be inappropriate for a church to forbid its members to endorse or oppose a particular candidate. There are strong reasons for individual Christians to work together on political campaigns, yet there are reasons at least as strong for churches to not get formally involved. It is difficult, then, to justify discouraging Christians from using movements and institutions outside of church control for social and political causes.

Should a church get involved, however, if a candidate commits a major transgression? What if, for example, a candidate incites political violence? What if he tries to use the force of government to retaliate against political opponents? What if he makes racist statements? What if he wages unjust war against another nation? What if he coerces people to affirm or support sexual perversion? What if he doubles down on government support for the slaughter of unborn children? What if he intends to use taxpayer money to fund that evil? Though ecclesiastical opposition to such a candidate and his voters might seem like an obvious choice, it becomes less obvious when there are no clearly superior alternatives. If there are no good options, how bad is too bad?

It is at such times that individuals and voluntary associations (more voluntary than a church) must be free to make arguments and take positions. If they are not, people's ability to find the best arguments and the best positions is greatly reduced.

Weighing the Options

We are in a presidential election in which both main candidates have major moral and ethical problems in policy and administration. Arguments for either candidate will be difficult (anyone who doesn't think so needs to sit down and listen for a while), but an argument to vote for neither carries with it some of the same costs as pacifism or opposition to the death penalty or opposition to all political activity (Christians who know church history will understand the importance of these analogies). Finding the best arguments for one candidate and against his opponent is important, even if you end up not voting or voting third party.

There are two things that the thoughtful advocate for a candidate must do. First, he must identify the best arguments on each side. Second, he must demonstrate as clearly as possible that the arguments for his candidate are superior to the arguments for the opponent. When it comes to debating actual people, of course the thoughtful person will have to debate those who support the other candidate. However, he will also have to spend some time trying to persuade his own candidate's supporters to stop using bad arguments and start using better ones. He will have to do this with confidence in his own opinions but with the humility to admit that he himself could be mistaken.

I want to try to model this by distinguishing between bad and good arguments on abortion for voting for Biden, whom I have already endorsed. If I do a good job, I hope it will inspire others to apply the same reasoning to other issues and other candidates. We may not reach agreement in this election or the next, but we can at least aspire to better debate and better discussion.

I will use a single source as my jumping-off point, the Pro-Life Evangelicals for Biden consensus statement that was issued October 1st. I will try to identify arguments allowed for under its framework and evaluate their strength.

Good and Bad Reasoning from the Pro-Life Evangelicals for Biden Statement

"AS PRO-LIFE EVANGELICALS, WE DISAGREE WITH VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN AND THE DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM ON THE ISSUE OF ABORTION. BUT WE BELIEVE A BIBLICALLY SHAPED COMMITMENT TO THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE COMPELS US TO A CONSISTENT ETHIC OF LIFE THAT AFFIRMS THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE FROM BEGINNING TO END."

Bad arguments that would fit this statement:

Opposition to abortion on demand is reason enough for solidarity on the abortion issue.

The primary test of a policy that affirms the biblical sanctity of life is that it minimize the loss of human life.

Agreement with Biden or another Democrat on life issues other than abortion is reason enough to overcome the abortion objection to voting for him.

The strategic value of a vote for a candidate in spite of his or her support for abortion is the same regardless of the office the candidate is seeking.

Examples: Legal exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother are the most common.

The statement notes that Democrats want to help women financially with supporting an additional child, which would potentially alleviate the primary incentive women cite for having an abortion. 

Quality of life issues, racism, disease prevention and treatment, possibly political violence or unjust war.

Transferring the arguments for Biden to Democratic legislators who would help him carry out his agenda or pressure him to take it further.

Explanation: Except for the life of the mother example, none of these reflect concerns proportionate to the dignity of innocent preborn life. Rape and incest exceptions create an additional victim of the original crime: the unborn baby. The life of the mother is trickier, as it involves philosophical questions of intent and other issues (is the baby's death the inevitable result of a legitimate medical procedure, or should the attendant have tried to save both lives?) Even intelligent, well-meaning people may not understand or agree with each other on this last exception.

Taking innocent human life, such as the life of an infant in the womb, is a moral evil. It is always wrong, unlike policy disagreement over the most just and effective way to preserve human life.

Though abortion is only one issue, it is a weighty enough issue to serve as a litmus test to some degree.

Policy strategy and constitutional concerns necessitate taking separation of powers and checks and balances into consideration.

Better arguments: 

Political cooperation with people who disagree with abortion on demand, though they may make excuses for abortion in some cases, can be a legitimate engine for incremental reform if done judiciously.

Giving people policy incentives to preserve life rather than take it is a good thing in itself, and it makes penalties for murder more effective. 

Compassion for the poor is not only prudent, but also a moral duty.

Superior positions on life issues other than abortion can combine with strategic calculations on abortion to build an argument that an explicitly pro-abortion candidate would better use the power of the sword.

Different offices:

A united government is not always good.

A divided government is not always bad.

A strategic split vote can send a message, even if it is not completely successful in electing each preferred candidate.

It is possible for an entire ticket for federal office to be worse than the alternative, even if the alternative is more explicitly pro-abortion. (Legislators could be as bad as or worse than their party's presidential candidate, or vice versa.)

"As the National Association of Evangelicals’ official public policy document (FOR THE HEALTH OF THE NATION) insists, “Faithful evangelical civic engagement and witness must champion a biblically balanced agenda.“ Therefore we oppose “one issue” political thinking because it lacks biblical balance."

Bad arguments: 

One issue voters incorrectly think that a position on one issue is enough to earn a vote (straw man argument).

No issue is ever weighty enough by itself to disqualify a candidate from consideration.

Explanation: The fact that some parts of God's law are weightier than others implies that a single issue could be enough to disqualify a candidate from consideration, though not to earn a vote.

Better arguments: 

Moral issues, whether broad ones such as life or narrower ones such as murder or abortion specifically, have complex policy implications. A simple litmus test is not likely to be appropriate in every situation.

Some candidates have problems of character and administration that make evaluating them on policy difficult. The baggage that a candidate brings can make that candidate's association with a preferred policy not only questionable, but actually counter-productive.

"For these reasons, we believe that on balance, Joe Biden’s policies are more consistent with the biblically shaped ethic of life than those of Donald Trump. Therefore, even as we continue to urge different policies on abortion, we urge evangelicals to elect Joe Biden as president."

Bad arguments: 

All Pro-Life or Evangelical voters must agree on the same candidate or party.

All Pro-Life or Evangelical voters must agree on which policies best promote and protect human life.

The quantity of life issues in policy should be weighed without considering the differences in their kind.

Explanation: Though the best policy and non-policy arguments for one candidate over another may be clear for some, they will likely not be clear for all or even most. Even good and intelligent people can be wrong.

Better arguments: 

Some elections demand that voters weigh more strategic and moral arguments than in other elections.

Consensus statements can point to the best arguments for a position whether or not they include them explicitly.

The Biden/Harris goal of codifying Roe vs Wade, while misguided, achieves a long-term goal of opposition to Roe: the goal of returning abortion policy to the legislature, where it belongs. Any way you look at it, whether in terms of Congressional legislation or constitutional amendment, it corrects the procedural mistake of Roe vs Wade that even supporters like Ruth Bader Ginsburg acknowledge.

Bonus meta-policy arguments:

Biden may be more likely to effectively pursue resolution of abortion issues through legislation than Trump, and legislation is both more appropriate and more permanent than executive order for settling political controversies.

Biden may be more likely than Trump to contribute to an environment that prioritizes principled cooperation and substance in policy decisions and less likely to create distractions and petty fights.

Biden may be less likely to bring beliefs and practices that perpetuate separation of powers and checks and balances into question than Trump.

Biden may be more likely to show confidence in his subordinates and to use his powers as Executive head and Commander-in-Chief effectively.

Wrapping it Up

This concludes my summary of the best arguments for voting for Biden that I am aware of. What do you think? Do you disagree with my criticism of some arguments? Do you think my statement of those positions is fair?

How about my own arguments for Biden: do you think that you can improve on my anti-abortion and pro-life arguments? Do you disagree on Biden being the best choice or even a legitimate option? What do you think are the best arguments for candidates other than Biden? What are the best arguments for voting Democratic or Republican for Congress?

Let me know what you think in the comments. Be sure to like and share on Facebook and Twitter, and check out my page!

Threading the Needle Between Electoral Competition and Meritocracy

 There is a legend that says that Ben Franklin was asked after the Constitutional Convention what he had helped to create. He is said to have replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." While the Federalists who crafted and argued for the Constitution were satisfied that the government it established (or reformed) was the best that they were likely to get, they were under no illusion that it was indestructible. Not least among their apprehensions was the fear of self-destruction due to lack of virtue among its citizens.

How Important is Preserving Our Federal Republic?

It is true that there are a significant number of people in every election who talk and possibly act as though the survival of the constitutional system is in immediate danger. There is also a continuing debate over which elections, historically, have most threatened the survival of the republic. It is not even uncommon for people anxious about a particular election to agree on the dire view of its stakes yet disagree on the source of the danger. None of this detracts from the facts that the preservation of the Constitution is a task that falls to every successive generation, or that our nation faces crises from time to time that disproportionately increase the risk to the constitution of a particular election for federal office.

In view of the opinions I have expressed on this election and the last one, it should come as no surprise to anyone that I think we are in one of those times. Although I do not necessarily expect the crisis that I believe I see to progress as rapidly as some expect, nevertheless I do think that action is urgently needed to prevent things from spiralling out of control. This is not a call to panic: panic creates its own dangers. Rather, it is a call to think calmly and clearly about the danger, so that we can devise an effective response.

One of the challenges of political competition in general and partisan polarization in particular is that it is inefficient as a means of bringing about the level of consensus needed for collective action. It can even prevent a consensus from forming on important issues. The good news is that how we think about a candidate or election is generally more important than what we think. More helpful still, the unchanging nature of some of the main dangers to the republic makes it easier for us to apply much of the same reasoning from one election and candidate to the next.

Civic Virtue

Let us turn our attention, then, to the issue of virtue. There has long been a distinction recognized among Christians between civic and religious virtue. The idea is not that religious virtue (read "biblical standards") is unnecessary for a society to survive and thrive, but that certain virtuous traits are both more common and more immediately necessary for a society's temporal success than some of those virtues that are central to life in the church or to preparation for the next life. In fact, thought and talk about civic virtue is sometimes packaged in such a way as to bypass religious objections and appeal to a broad audience. In turn, the thought of non-Christians and non-theists about virtue can be processed through a biblical filter and the good in that thought separated from the bad.

Now, different forms of government require different combinations of traits, or civic virtues, to function. So for instance, there are particular ways of thinking about the kind of virtue required in a monarch or an aristocrat because of their role in government. Likewise, there are corresponding ways of thinking about the virtue needed from those who are living under the government of a monarchy or aristocracy.

In a republic, the distinction between ruler and ruled is less sharp. Thus, the citizens in a republic need the virtues required for effective self-government. This means that the category of civic virtue known as republican virtue (or virtues, in the plural) must be developed in and applied to all areas of life, not only those that are specifically considered political. Put simply, even apart from strictly religious considerations, we must expect a more comprehensive virtue in the life of citizens in a republic than in the life of citizens under a different form of government. There is still a higher standard for government officials even in a republic, but every citizen must be considered a potential government official for the purpose of civic virtue. This virtue ought to be expressed when voting in particular, even if one never holds or is considered for office.

American Republican Virtue

Now, when people hear about republican virtue in a US context, their minds likely go quickly to the currently popular debate over whether the United States was basically a good or bad country when it was started. However, this question is not as important for religion or philosophy as it might appear at first. The ability to think clearly about the virtue a society needs for its circumstances and about how to develop that virtue does not entirely depend on a certain baseline of virtue already existing in individuals. The Roman republic, for example, had been described since Augustine as deeply, fundamentally immoral, although the personal qualities that had led to its military and political successes for half a millennium were carefully and sympathetically studied. The American founders still found Rome's example worthy of imitation, though they had the benefit of hindsight to know that it was capable of improvement. 

Whether the American founders followed Rome or Britain too closely or not closely enough is a topic that serious people can debate. What no one can dispute is their rejection of the monarchical system of government that Rome transformed into or that the US left behind upon throwing off British rule. In their thoughts about how to establish and maintain a rule of law on representative principles, then, they had the motivation necessary to meaningfully pursue political outcomes that the vast majority of Americans still want and to avoid outcomes that the vast majority of Americans still do not want. The role that they saw of virtue in maintaining representative government and the rule of law is one that really should not be doubted.

However, in any republic, there will be some difference of opinion on issues of morality. In a nation with no established religion and no religious test for office, opinions on the basis and content of morality can be expected to increasingly diverge. That doesn't mean that a basic consensus on some major issues is impossible, only that it will be complex and difficult to achieve or maintain. The willingness to attempt the work that is needed for consensus is itself a test of character. The success or failure of that project is closely tied to the success or failure of the constitutional system, and with it of many of the liberties and protections it guarantees. When you think of a change of constitutional systems, you should not think in terms of the peaceful transition of power between presidents and congresses: think more of assassinations, revolution, civil war, quite likely genocide. Those are the physical and moral stakes.

How to Care for the Republic

Proper care for our civic culture is the best way to prevent these evils and to mitigate their harm if they do occur. There are at least three ways we should do this:

1. Embrace politics as an arena where moral action is required. It is true that some believe that voting and holding government office are inherently evil. Even some who would not go that far believe that war or capital punishment are inherently immoral. They should be free to hold and express those views, but their views should be challenged.

For those who do not hold such views, however, the case for non-involvement is less tenable. If they can not yet reach intelligent, principled political stands that lead to action, they should at least be reading and studying with that kind of action as a goal. If you can not stand the options that exist, make new ones. If you can not support anyone who is running for office, run yourself.

2. Respect the importance of politics as a tool for moral instruction. Politics is not only an activity for practicing virtue: it is also an activity for learning virtue. Teaching others the moral knowledge you have and seeking moral knowledge even from opponents and those with whom you disagree should be your habits. This is both how moral consensuses form and how policy is made in the absence of a consensus.

3. Accept the moral limits of political activity. Politics is not going to change people's basic character. It is not going to transform their entire views on morality. If it does, that is a bad thing. Politics is separate from religion for a reason, and a politically based religion is the worst kind, in terms of its effect on citizenship and society. Bring morality into politics: don't bring politics into morality.

What happens if these deep differences continue? What happens if, for example, there is not a religious revival that changes the views and lives of a decisive number of citizens? Based on the theory and history of political systems, we can expect republican virtue to decline to the point that republican government is no longer possible. Untrustworthy people will destroy trust in the regime. We can expect that our constitution will cease to influence government and possibly cease to even be its nominal standard. At least, that is what I foresee. 

However, political activity and discussion are necessary, if secondary, parts of moral and religious duty that benefit the whole society. We can not control what happens to the commonwealth, but we can control how we treat the commonwealth. The rest is in God's hands.

President Trump's Outstanding Supreme Court Nominee is Why You Should Not Vote for Him

I have made it a point until now not to announce my vote for president this year. Initially, I said I would probably not announce my vote until after the election. But events change plans. A Supreme Court vacancy opened up, and new ideas and principles were introduced into the continuing argument over who should appoint replacements to the Supreme Court during an election year. I decided the next day that I would make my announcement the day before the election, and I announced my plans for anyone on social media who cared about such things. Another event has caused me to change plans yet again and to make my argument now for my electoral choice: President Donald J. Trump announced during his first debate with former Vice President Biden that Roe vs. Wade is not on the ballot in this presidential election.

Here is the exchange between the two candidates:

Vice President Joe Biden: (10:11)
Let me finish. The point is that the President also is opposed to Roe V. Wade. That’s on the ballot as well and the court, in the court, and so that’s also at stake right now. And so the election is all-

President Donald J. Trump: (10:25)

You don’t know what’s on the ballot. Why is it on the ballot? Why is it on the ballot? It’s not on the ballot.

Vice President Joe Biden: (10:31)

It’s on the ballot in the court.

President Donald J. Trump: (10:32)

I don’t think so.

Vice President Joe Biden: (10:33)

In the court.

President Donald J. Trump: (10:34)

There’s nothing happening there.

Vice President Joe Biden: (10:35)

Donald would you just be quiet for a minute.

President Donald J. Trump: (10:36)

You don’t know her view on Roe V. Wade? You don’t know her view.

Now, of course Justice Barrett has addressed the status of Roe vs. Wade in the past. I won't go into the issues of what she said, when she said it, and what it likely means now. The point is that President Trump's view is that her position on Roe vs. Wade is unknown and that Roe is not on the ballot in the presidential race. This is important not because it is likely that Barrett's position on Roe vs. Wade is unknown (though it is likely) nor even because it is probable (though it may be probable) but because of who said it. It is also important because according to prior statements by the president, it appears that he has not discussed Roe vs. Wade with Barrett: therefore his statement must be based on knowledge that is available to the public.

I don't want to misrepresent President Trump here: just because he is not making Roe an issue now does not mean he could not make it an issue at some point in a second term. No one thinks that is unlikely, and I don't think any reasonable person would fault him for doing that. Roe vs. Wade remains controversial, for good reason. Many of Trump's political allies and supporters want it undone, either through Constitutional amendment or through Supreme Court rulings. The lack of a commitment to overturn Roe vs. Wade does not imply a commitment to not overturn Roe vs. Wade. I would take the president's statement as an example of honesty in setting expectations, and I do not fault him for the expectation he is setting.

By honestly taking Roe off the table for the present, however, Trump opens the door for a strategic discussion among opponents of Roe. Up until now, the pro-life argument for Biden and against Trump has not been tied to Trump's position on any strategic anti-legalized-abortion objective. Roe vs. Wade is a permanent, non-negotiable anti-abortion target. I would argue that the president's refusal to take a position on Roe vs. Wade in this election is an opportunity to reconsider his usefulness in the anti-abortion cause.

Anyone like me who has a general alignment to a party platform has certainly faced pressure to make a public decision between the two presidential candidates. A refusal to announce a preference, together with a willingness to comment on the statements and actions of the candidates, opens one up to criticism by both candidates' adherents. We are at that point in the election cycle where even some who before would not make an issue of opinions on the presidential race are insisting that there is only one moral choice. Principled opposition to abortion is an argument that voters for both candidates are already using.

I want to emphasize an argument, however, that has not been dominant and perhaps not fully expounded by others. My argument is that the political and legal case for ending legalized abortion depends strongly on our founding and governing documents.

My argument is that the political and legal case for ending legalized abortion depends strongly on our founding and governing documents.

Although this issue and others, such as slavery, war against other nations and peoples indigenous to or outside of the current boundaries of the United States, women's suffrage, segregation, eugenics, and civil rights have a significant moral component, the case for change can not be separated from the nation's framework of revolutionary ideas and legal principles. There is no divine right republicanism that guarantees a vote or political equality to every person and nation on earth. Much less are rights and duties tied to some naturalistic, materialistic principle of social progress that human beings must acknowledge. The right to life for categories of people is similarly tied to specific political and social conditions, some of which are not universally applicable to all of the peoples of the world. Moral actors become political actors with legitimate power to direct government only by constitutional means.

Moral actors become political actors with legitimate power to direct government only by constitutional means.

Yet here is the thing: constitutions can change, even in their fundamental principles. The process by which we were transformed from a collection of royal colonies to a federal republic is a prime example. We could change again, and it could just as likely be to something worse as to something better. Attempts to make political and legal constraints independent of the logic of national development are a contemptible exercise in futility, and they have no moral justification.

Yet here is the thing: constitutions can change, even in their fundamental principles. The process by which we were transformed from a collection of royal colonies to a federal republic is a prime example. We could change again, and it could just as likely be to something worse as to something better. 

It is true that the evolution of our society (even in ways that have advanced the founding ideas) has been influenced by extra-legal actions, violent and non-violent. However, these are exceptions that prove the rule. When the exceptions become the rule, the logic for the exceptions ceases to exist. This is why respect for the rule of law in general and commitment to non-violence in particular is so important. We may think that the rules don't apply to us or that we are justified in making exceptions, but the chances that we as individuals or political cliques have some insight into the direction of history that the rest of society lacks are remote.

There is indeed a tie, as national and social leaders at key points in history have demonstrated, between religious principle and the direction of political or civil life. However, it is as easy to overestimate the strength of that tie as it is to dismiss its validity entirely. The American Revolution was not a purely religious enterprise. Neither was abolition. Neither was the Civil War. Neither was the Civil Rights Movement. 

And neither is the Pro-Life Movement.

So let's talk about President Trump. Some of Trump's supporters in 2016 argued that conservatism had failed and that it was time for a less civil, less incremental approach. Their argument was not flawless, but they have had an opportunity to experiment with a different approach. Surely, this is a good point to take stock of the results of that experiment.

Trump has had some success in pointing out failures across society, from political leadership to media to government bureaucracy to nearly every institution of American life. Yet he routinely makes issues about himself and at best exaggerates the shortcomings of others. He almost never accepts responsibility for his own failures: it is always someone else's fault. Even if he appointed them, it is not his fault.

He habitually expresses opinions on issues where he has not earned the right to disagree with authorities, from medicine to science to intelligence to military matters, and on and on. He has not ended the abuses of the Chief Executive or the Commander-in-Chief. His performance as a leader on legislative policy (now a major responsibility of the president) leaves much to be desired. Yet beyond his abuse of power and his inability to perform many responsibilities of the office, he actively makes things worse. He picks petty fights and sows doubt in people's character, skills, and knowledge where there is no justification for that doubt. He is actively damaging the institutions of government he claims to want to fix, and he is confusing his own personal interest with the national interest.

This is the man Republicans are asking us to trust to fix abortion. If abortion is a civil rights violation, Roe vs. Wade frustrates the proper operation of the state and federal governments. It usurps the legislative power even of the federal government and hinders the state governments in the performance of their duties. Casey vs. Planned Parenthood does not fix the problem. Donald J. Trump, if he even understands the problem, is doing exactly the opposite of what needs to be done to fix it. He is breaking the mechanism by which the problem can and should be fixed.

That is why I will not be voting for Donald Trump next month. In fact, I will be voting for Joe Biden. In some ways, he most likely represents a step back on abortion. However, in my opinion, he will not do as much harm to the nation and the anti-abortion cause as Trump. In his own way, he may even help.