As we agreed the Bereans have been letting our readers know whom we would (probably) be voting for this presidential election, and our reasons.  Our opinions certainly won’t sway the election outcome, but  hope we can stimulate some helpful thinking.  This for me is a somewhat tentative exercise, as there is still time before the election.  I hope too that our reasoning is done within the framework of Biblical principles.  Pardon the length, but I felt it necessary to lay a foundation first.

First, it is crucial to understand two things about any political candidate, or even any human: (1) they will not be perfectly virtuous and (2) almost no one will agree with everything a candidate says or believes in terms of his or her policy proposals and ideas.  To elaborate, every human is sinful in some way or another. Whether it is pride, selfishness, simple meanness, corruption, sexual immorality, or any number of other sins in act or disposition, candidates for political office are no different than us.  True, their particular sins may be different in ways related specifically to their office-seeking.  But they are nevertheless human.  They are not by any means gods or close to it.  Moreover, even if they aren’t sinning, we may still be irritated by their habits or speech or their actions.  We have to be careful here, since it is not sin.  But we can still be sure that they will “rub us the wrong way” at times–sort that out from sin.

Because every candidate sins we will be required to make choices between two or more sinners–unless we don’t vote at all.  Yes, we can weigh sins, but when we do we run up against some interesting issues.  For example, do we vote for a candidate who has an unbiblical view of some issue that is of public import, abortion, for example, while he/she is personally nearly impeccable?  Or visa versa?  Remember, you are voting for an officeholder, who may (or may not) use his/her office to impose sinful views on those he represents, even while he remains otherwise “virtuous” in his personal life.

On the second point, voters cannot ever hope that any single candidate will agree with them on every issue.  We make choices in a “cafeteria” situation, but unfortunately we can’t simply choose some issues we like from one candidate and other issues from other candidates, as one could in a real cafeteria.  For each of us, it is for each individual candidate, a take-it-or-leave-it choice.  I come to the cafeteria of candidates but find the menu is limited to entrees with fixed offerings.  That being the case, we will have to make our choice by weighing the issues and determining which are more vital and which we can pass over.  Moreover, these issues likely are not related to sin.  They simply represent policy proposals that are alternative ways of getting at problems and are morally neutral in themselves.  This is obviously not true for every proposal, but for many it is.

So we are in something of a quandary when picking candidates, whether as Christians or non-Christians.  It is worth remembering too that we are not choosing members for a church office, where character is made a non-negotiable standard for qualification for the office.  In the church we cannot accept one for office who violates the traits or standards explicitly laid out in Scripture, or who engages in open or unrepentant sin.  But in the public realm this is not so easy, as we may find that every candidate would be disqualified if held to Scriptural standards.  And those standards do not apply in the same way to this public/political realm–though they are not irrelevant.

Here is the upshot of the theoretical argument.  The Scriptures distinguish between state and church, or, more aptly, between our citizenship in God’s Kingdom and our earthly citizenship, which includes our political existence.  Obviously Christians are simultaneously citizens of both, but they are nevertheless separate existences.  In the realm of God’s Kingdom we have standards that do not allow the same freedom to choose leaders that we do in the earthly-political existence. We can’t expect the same standards to hold among non-Christians as we would rightfully expect in God’s Kingdom.  As much as it would be ideal to have Godly candidates, or at least moral candidates who also hold intellectually defensible policies about every public issue, we cannot expect that.  We live in a second best world in the “now,” which is also the “not yet.”

Here we are then.  We can choose Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Gary Johnson, or another third party candidate–or we can abstain from voting for president.

My choice as I see it now is Donald Trump.  He is personally very imperfect, to say the least, but I am not voting for one whose personal virtue is above reproach, and besides, Hillary Clinton’s ethical beliefs and practices are more ethically suspect.  Of course, if the personal sin issues related directly to the public performance, that would be an issue–and every voter has to make that judgment as to whether that might be the case. That issue may not be so large among many as it is evident that all candidates are deficient–unless again, one’s conscience will not permit a vote for any such candidate.  I do not want anyone to violate their conscience.  That itself is sin for Christians. But on the other hand, since our “lot” in God’s providence is to live in a democracy, we are I believe,obligated to do whatever is available to us to “seek the welfare of the city.”  That means if we are allowed to vote, we should vote.  So perhaps conscience in this case is trumped (no pun intended) by a Biblical principle, meaning that our conscience is in an objective sense “false” (I understand that Paul distinguishes objective and subjective senses of conscience–there is, he writes, no such thing as an idol (objective), but some believe food sacrificed to one associates them with idol worship (subjective)).

With regard to Trump’s views on policy issues, let me first address his social ideas.  He does favor or at least would permit abortion.  However I see his own position on this as weak, and I do not believe he would stand in the way of a socially conservative Congress, or that he would appoint a socially liberal justice.  I see his other social views similarly, mildly libertarian, but not strongly.  This leaves plenty of room for Congress to act on behalf of life.  In this, Trump’s personal ethics may conflict with his public position–for the good of life.

On his domestic policy, I think his protectionist ideas are economically detrimental.  However, they seem to be tied largely to his immigration policy.  If immigration were addressed,properly, I don’t believe he would be so protectionistic, though I may be naive.  This brings me to immigration.  I can’t determine exactly what he proposes to do, short of building a wall.  My own leanings are for a rather generous and non-discriminatory immigration policy but with strict and enforced screening methods in place.  In addition, I agree that something has to be done about illegal immigrants already in the United States.  It looks like Trump has backed off deporting them, and I agree.  Perhaps a tax or a fine, or perhaps we need to take greater measures to find them and be sure they are going through proper and legal procedures if they wish to remain.  But having said that, immigration is an immensely complex issue and I don’t see any president being able to fully solve it in four years.

Now let’s compare Hillary Clinton.  Morally, she is even more deficient–in different but equally sinful ways–than Trump, if that can be quantified (and I readily admit the problem here).  Lying, subversion, corruption, etc.  And by all accounts she is personally just mean and condescending (Trump might also be condescending, but I can’t tell as easily from a distance).  But let’s say their two moral dispositions are “equally bad” and so cancel each other out.  However it is not so simple, since many of Clinton’s problems also impinge directly on her public life, as we see from the e-mail scandal, the Clinton Foundation, her earlier Rose Law Firm problems, her general tendency to lie with regard to almost any public issue.  So I give Trump the overall edge, not to make this too flippant.

In addition, Trump has shown some positive policy proposals, including taxation, regulation, and other economic issues.  Is that enough to offset his other views?  That leads to his ideas about foreign policy.  On this, I am not a doomsayer who believes he would have us in a nuclear war, that he is so volatile that he could not deal appropriately, though firmly, with other leaders.  But I am also not completely confident in him.  It may be that he surrounds himself with really good people, and that he actually listens to their advice.  But perhaps not.  On the other hand, we certainly need some strength in our foreign policy, and we have had only extreme weakness the last eight years.  Would Clinton be different?  I am not confident, and even if I were, would her foreign policy skills outweigh everything else?  I am skeptical.

On the regulatory front, I would not expect Trump to be nearly as active or active in harmful ways, for the most part, in the issuance of costly and oppressive new regulations.  In fact he has promised to roll back regulations issued by various agencies.  Clinton has said nothing at all about this subject, which leaves her vulnerable to the charge that she is just like Obama.

So why am I voting–tentatively–for Trump?  I believe, perhaps again naively, that he is better than Clinton on issues about which I can live, and which do not offend my conscience.  It is by no means because I have effusive praise for him.  And, to be honest, I fear the radical ideas of Hillary Clinton, which have been articulated well by others (see for example: Hillary’s Empty Moralism Is a reflection of the Greater Progressive Movement) Her ethical positions are directly related to her policy views, while Trump is morally pragmatic but still somewhat dispositionally conservative in some important areas–though more of a hedonist and egotist personally.  Let me clarify that my position is not a “lesser of two evils” one.  I am seeking someone who will, even in a very small way, actually help move the nation forward in positive ways.

For the Christian, conscience will have to guide you.  I really believe for most Christians it will come to that.  I counsel not to violate your conscience, but at the same time, not to mistake conscience for mere distaste.  The utopian vision cannot become the enemy of what will move the nation forward even if only a little.