Four years ago, we questioned, to the effect, of “how did it come to this?”  How were we left with a choice of a very corrupt Hillary Clinton and a vulgar Donald Trump?  While extending the Obama administration (effectively) with a Clinton presidency was unthinkable, voting for Mr. Trump would mean an effective endorsement of a man with a public record of values that you might have spent your life criticizing.  It was truly a Hobbesian choice, and one that I argued in 2016 you did not have to make.  My basic point was that arithmetically there was no possibility of your vote being determinative, and that even if it were, then the courts would decide anyway.  And thinking theologically, we know that God is going to put whoever He wants in power, and He really doesn’t need our help.  But I said your vote does matter, but only as an expression of your preferences.  My thought process in this regard has not changed in the intervening four years.  My hope was that we subsequently would have a strong conservative challenger to Mr. Trump, but alas, that has not happened.  And on the Democratic side, a radical agenda became even more radical, with an open assault on the values I care about the most (e.g., social values such as abortion). Mr. Biden’s jettisoning of the Hyde Amendment to secure the nomination is just one example.  For me, I’m virulently opposed to virtually the entire Democratic platform, and I suspect never in my lifetime will I ever again vote Democratic.  As Ronald Reagan famously said, he didn’t leave the Democratic Party, it left him. 

My desired choice in our situation is not available: I would like to vote against Mr. Biden so that my one vote would subtract from his vote total. But I don’t want to have to do this by voting for Mr. Trump. Unfortunately, that is not an option. So the question is do I vote with Mr. Trump, or a third party candidate?  I have thought better of my 2016 vote, that of writing in the name of the Constitution Party candidate.  As an expressive vote, I don’t think I’m expressing much when his name is not on the ballot.  My vote for that candidate will express as much preference as those voting for Fido, or Mickey Mouse.  So this year it’s not for me.  And since I will not vote for the unstated party of the Greens, I’m left with a Libertarian candidate or Mr. Trump. The Libertarians would fulfill my goal of an expressive vote, precisely because my policy differences with Mr. Trump center around his poor understanding of economics (trade policy) and his lack of concern over the size of government and our national debt.  Yet I have also vowed not to vote for any candidate that is pro-abortion. The Libertarians are just too slick on this point: 

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

Surely if we are not voting for anarchy there is a role for government to protect individuals.  Leaving government out of the issue of abortion is more radical than Roe V Wade itself, and puts the official Libertarian position practically the same as New York’s hideous state law, albeit with the Libertarians acknowledging there could be some that view this as an evil.  So no to the Libertarian policy. 

So that leaves me with Mr. Trump—a candidate I have often criticized but who also has done much I agree with.  With Mr. Trump it always comes down to substance vs style, or stated differently, policy vs personality.  From a policy perspective, Mr. Trump is simply an earlier era Democrat—he has no concern especially for bigger government, but is in favor of policies he believes will get the economy going.  This is a case of getting a half a loaf vs not even a slice of bread with the Democrats.  I’m pleased with Mr. Trump’s deregulatory agenda especially; I think it has been more economically beneficial than his tax cuts.  I’m generally pleased with many of his cabinet appointees and their actions, (e.g., Secretary of Education DeVos, and the move to rationalize Title IX).  I think only a Donald Trump would have exited the Paris Climate accords, and I think he’s one of the few that would walk away from the horrible Iran deal that Mr. Obama inflicted on us.  On foreign policy generally Mr. Trump’s policies are better than his words (in many cases by far, given his style). And of course his judicial record—he couldn’t have done better here, even if I’m not particularly happy with some of votes of Mr. Gorsuch and Mr. Kavanaugh.  He can also credibly say he’s been the most pro-life president of our generation.  Certainly he has been very supportive to a cause near and dear to my heart.  And very unfairly to Mr. Trump, his policies toward the Middle East, which continue leading to historic breakthroughs are ones that the media will scarcely mention.  Mr. Obama won a Nobel Prize based on the hope of what he might do in 2009; Mr. Trump arguably should win one for his administration’s mideast peace accomplishments.  We could review here and yonder, but if the name Donald Trump were nowhere near these policies, many of his policies would be lauded.  But at the same time he is virtually silent on the ongoing oppression of the Uighurs in China, and in language is seemingly supportive of dictatorial thugs across the globe, as my fellow Berean Mark Caleb Smith so ably described in chapel today. Considering my biggest economic policy criticism of Mr. Trump (on trade), we should note that his views look suspiciously similar to Bernie Sanders—which ought to say something.  Yet if this election were only on policy, we would have a reasonable if not perfect choice.

But policies are not the only issue.  I do have concern over the toxic nature of our public discourse.  Regular readers know I’m all for a tough debate, but there is a boundary that should not be crossed, and Mr. Trump seems to enjoy going there. The toxicity was clearly long before Mr. Trump arrived, and it will likely be there long after he’s gone (this election or four years from now).  Rhetoric on both sides certainly can be incendiary to deranged supporters.  But Mr. Trump seems to relish inflaming passions, and he does this continually—not simply occasionally (as we unfortunately have to expect during the red meat campaign season—which is bad enough).  I do expect a president to be presidential—something Mr. Trump refuses to do.  In short, I expect some level of class, not crass.  John Piper suggests that the toxicity of his tone and actions ought to be a much stronger consideration for our political choices than many conservatives are at least publicly saying, and I agree with him.  Yet if the choice is binary (which I argue its really not), then Mr. Piper’s point is less compelling.  Mr. Biden is not exactly a paragon of verbal virtue himself, like when he says the Republicans want to put blacks “back in chains* or that a black person isn’t black if he doesn’t vote for him.  Or when in the last debate he said that Mr. Trump was personally responsible for the 200,000+ lives lost due to Covid-19.  Are we really supposed to believe that if Joe Biden would have been president during the pandemic that not one person would have died?  Really? Some rhetorical excesses must be tempered, and this is one of them.

Last night the Senate confirmed Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.  Mr. Trump has fought hard for good judges, and as ridiculous as many of his comments are (you can find Mr. Trump saying virtually anything on many issues, especially Covid-19), I think the Democratic circus in the Kavanaugh hearings was profoundly troubling.  Say what you will about the Republicans’ treatment of Merrick Garland—he was personally treated with respect even if you believe his nomination was treated unfairly.  That cannot be said of the vile treatment of grandstanding wannabe presidential candidates to Mr. Kavanaugh–one of whom is on the ballot to be our next vice-president.  Of course, the top of the ticket led the way to cynically discredit Robert Bork; so she is cut from the same cloth. Further, the Democratic Party’s single-minded obsession of hating Mr. Trump is also broadly corruptive of our society.  When the press no longer even puts up a pretense that there should be an iota of objectivity in their reporting we have a serious problem.  Mr. Biden’s strength and his entire campaign rest on “I’m not Donald Trump.”  But for me, this election, the strength of Mr. Trump is “I’m not Joe Biden, and I will fight against the progressive agenda of the Democratic Party.” This year, this season, I’m using my expressive vote to signal displeasure with the radical nature of the Democratic Party, and will vote for the very flawed candidate, Donald Trump.

The bottom line for every one of us: there is reason to be against any particular candidate and there are reasons to be in favor of them (even if only “I’m not the other guy”). Let’s steward our votes well, and let’s try to give grace to those that come to different conclusions, simply because they prioritize one aspect of the decision space differently from you or me. But I do encourage each of you that supports Donald Trump, do not do so uncritically–we do not want to lead the world to believe that his character does not matter. It most certainly does, as does the flawed character of Joe Biden. But so do the policy consequences of his or Mr. Biden’s election.

* Which is a very strange assertion for a party that actually did fight for slavery, and continued to suppress blacks well after, compared with a party whose origination was based in large part due to opposition to slavery, and delivered the votes to get the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed.  But I digress.