•   
  •   
  •   

Opinion Opinions | It is difficult for pro-lifers to vote Democrat. But it’s better than Trump.

23:30  17 february  2020
23:30  17 february  2020 Source:   washingtonpost.com

Romney’s impeachment vote made this California Republican proud

  Romney’s impeachment vote made this California Republican proud After 30 years in the business of politics, you find yourself to be alumni of several different campaigns. I’ve always been proud to be a Mitt Romney alum, as the California director of his 2008 presidential campaign. I had decided over a year beforehand that I wanted to work to elect Romney as president. I was impressed with how he was a Republican who was elected governor in the blue state of Massachusetts and pragmatically steered a course with conservative hues.My friend and then business partner Mike Murphy had navigated Romney’s Massachusetts victory, and I was influenced by the atypical genuine high esteem Mike held for Romney.

Editor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSN or Microsoft.

Among recent defenses of evangelical support for President Trump, ethicist Andrew Walker of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has provided the most reasonable.

Writing in National Review, Walker argues that his coreligionists are not MAGA cult members but conflicted moralists who must choose between supporting a “compromised, unqualified figurehead” and “a disastrous policy platform that bears the marks of intrinsic evil, such as abortion.” The critics of evangelical Christian political decisions, in Walker’s view, don’t fully understand the priority evangelicals give to their pro-life convictions. “To the average religious conservative,” he says, “saving America means saving it from the scourge of abortion.” This makes support for a strongly pro-choice political party essentially impossible.

Senate Democrats eye vote this week on Trump's Iran war powers

  Senate Democrats eye vote this week on Trump's Iran war powers Senate Democrats are mulling forcing a debate as soon as Wednesday on President Trump's ability to take military action against Iran. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said floor action on his resolution could start on Wednesday, with a final vote potentially taking place this week.

Subscribe to the Post Most newsletter: Today’s most popular stories on The Washington Post

I think Walker significantly (and strategically) overestimates the amount of moral angst amongst evangelical Trump supporters. But many pro-life voters (including myself) will face the dilemma he describes in the upcoming presidential election.

Walker is making the following claim: If you think abortion is a matter of life or death, then you must support whoever opposes it most vigorously, even if he or she is an immoral lout.

There are several responses:

First, it is a moral claim without a limiting principle. It would justify the argument: If you think abortion is a matter of life or death, then you must support whoever opposes it most vigorously, even if he or she suspends the Constitution and rules by decree. Or, even if he or she is sympathetic to chattel slavery. This should raise immediate ethical flags. The principle cries out for qualification.

Utah lawmakers halt push to rebuke Romney over impeachment

  Utah lawmakers halt push to rebuke Romney over impeachment Utah lawmakers said Tuesday they won't consider proposals to censure or recall U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney following his vote to convict President Donald Trump at his impeachment trial. Utah House Speaker Brad Wilson said the Republican caucus decided not to advance either proposal following a “robust debate" behind closed doors. Instead, Wilson will be present a citation thanking the president for his administration's work on issues “critical toUtah House Speaker Brad Wilson said the Republican caucus decided not to advance either proposal following a “robust debate" behind closed doors. Instead, Wilson will be present a citation thanking the president for his administration's work on issues “critical to Utah.

Second, the statement contains a false premise. Voters are not choosing a dictator who would have the immediate power to outlaw abortion. They are choosing a politician who may or may not be involved in influencing a public debate that may or may not result in the choice of a Supreme Court justice who may or may not be part of a majority opinion that may or may not overturn Roe v. Wade, which may or may not significantly reduce the number of abortions. A vote for a politician is only tenuously related to a change in the social and legal status of abortion in the United States. Indeed, the number of abortions trended downward in all but one year of the Clinton and Obama administrations.

Third, voting for a candidate is also related to other moral matters of public importance. This is the truest source of complexity: weighing likely political and social outcomes. One’s vote may discourage racism, or result in more empathetic treatment of the poor, or maintain high standards of public ethics, or encourage the proper treatment of women. So, voting for a pro-life president who promises to jail his or her enemies would be immoral. He or she would have the immediate power to destroy the rule of law and almost no immediate power to end abortion. Voting for a pro-life president who treats migrant children and fleeing refugees as so much human refuse would be immoral. Such dehumanization would have immediate consequences. Here the relative value (and urgency) that we assign to various moral imperatives matters greatly.

McConnell forces Senate votes on anti-abortion bills

  McConnell forces Senate votes on anti-abortion bills Mitch McConnell on Thursday set up two votes on anti-abortion bills for later this month, a move intended to excite conservatives and put a vulnerable Senate Democrat in a difficult position. © Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The Senate majority leader teed up votes on a bill banning abortions after 20 weeks and also the "Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." Both bills have been rejected by the Senate in recent years after failing to clear the chamber's 60-vote threshold.

Fourth, pro-lifers in the United States are going to win the abortion debate only if we persuade enough people to join our side of the argument. We are not going to prevail by gaining power and imposing our view. We can make changes at the margin using legislative majorities and executive power, but these are very marginal. Ultimately, we have a fundamentally persuasive task, requiring us to think about how our arguments look to people with different views. To have those arguments associated with Trump — and thus with misogyny, racism and xenophobia — is not likely to be helpful.

Finally, Christians have an additional burden in this debate: They need to act in ways that do not undermine the reputation of the Gospel. This commitment needs to figure heavily in the weighing of social outcomes.

Given these points, it would be possible for pro-life citizens to vote for a pro-choice candidate under limited circumstances — particularly when the social threat they oppose with their vote is more immediate than the long-term influence of their vote on the number of abortions.

Former county Republican chairwoman registers as Democrat — to cast primary vote for Pete Buttigieg

  Former county Republican chairwoman registers as Democrat — to cast primary vote for Pete Buttigieg Cindy Guerra, a former chairwoman of the Broward Republican Party, changed her party registration this week to become a Democrat. © Carline Jean / Sun Sentinel/South Florida Sun Sentinel/TNS Cindy Guerra, in 2010, when she was an officer of the Broward Republican Party. A staunch opponent of President Donald Trump, she has registered as a Democrat to vote for Pete Buttigieg in the March 17 Florida Democratic presidential primary. She said she did it so she could vote for Pete Buttigieg in Florida’s March 17 Democratic presidential primary.

It would be difficult for a pro-life citizen to be an enthusiastic and loyal Democrat, even if my case is correct. But it is possible to imagine circumstances in which voting for a Democrat would be preferable to endorsing immediate harm to the country by a Republican. And we are in exactly such a circumstance.

michaelgerson@washpost.com

Read more from Michael Gerson’s archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

Read more:

Michael Gerson: Evangelicals need to follow Christianity’s morals, not Trump’s

Michael Gerson: Trump’s politicization of the National Prayer Breakfast is unholy and immoral

Marc A. Thiessen: At the March for Life, Trump will be greeted as a pro-life hero — because he is one

Hugh Hewitt: Christianity Today took aim at Trump, but it only hurt itself

Arthur C. Brooks: What I said in my address to the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday

a group of people standing in front of a sign: Anti-abortion demonstrators attend the March for Life 2020 rally in Washington on Jan. 24. President Trump addressed rally-goers in person, a first for a sitting president.© Yuki Iwamura/Bloomberg Anti-abortion demonstrators attend the March for Life 2020 rally in Washington on Jan. 24. President Trump addressed rally-goers in person, a first for a sitting president.

KIRK: Rise Of Radicals Signals Democrat Downfall In November .
A majority of American don't support socialismEditor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSN or Microsoft.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

usr: 7
This is interesting!