One of the questions that often arise during an election is whether a Christian should vote for a candidate who may be morally compromised. Of course, on this side of eternity, every political candidate is going to fall short of our ideal leader, but what are we to do when our only options are so often dumb or dumber, bad or worse, evil or eviler?
Some argue in such a case, it is the Christian’s duty to abstain from voting. As Charles Spurgeon once said, “Of two evils, choose neither.” Some believe this is the only moral option, even if their decision guarantees a win for the worst candidate on the ticket. For many, it is more important to send a strong message to the lesser of two evils that their compromise with sin is a certain loss.
Whether or not that is the best and most moral approach, the reader may decide. But a question worth considering is how it is that so many Christians who profess Christ as King can so enthusiastically put their support behind a candidate that is far from Scripture on many crucial moral issues of our day.
While at no point in history has any politician been the perfect representation of Christ, that doesn’t mean we should lower our moral standards. But neither does it mean those who vote for the lesser of two evils are necessarily guilty of compromising their standards.
No thinking voter would consider their endorsement of a candidate as an endorsement of every action, opinion, and belief held by that candidate. Especially when that candidate advocates for, or is apathetic towards, those things the Bible clearly condemns as an abomination.
Most of us can see that many Western nations are on the wrong trajectory. At just about every level, Western leaders are moving their nations away from the stability of their Christian heritage, and towards a self-destructive, dystopian blend of Clown World Progressivism and Global Communism.
Those political candidates who run on the promise to take their nation to that nightmare of a destination quicker than others are the worst possible option on the voter card. It goes without saying, Christians simply cannot cast a vote for them. That would be a vote for sin.
But while the lesser of two evils still intends on taking the nation to an undesirable destination, it is still, by definition, nearer to the right destination than the other candidate would allow. C.S. Lewis once said that if we find ourselves on the wrong track, the man who turns back first is nearest to the place he wants to be.
On a train, every station is the wrong station except for the one you intend to reach. But not all stations are equally far from your desired location. Anyone who has travelled on a train will know that it’s better to be one station from your stop than eight. The further a nation travels in the wrong direction down the wrong line, the longer and harder that corrective journey will be.
For the Christian voting for the “lesser of two evils,” he is not so much voting for the candidate’s desired station as he is for its proximity to his desired station. He’s not voting to take the train in the wrong direction but the right direction, because he is not so much voting for the evil permitted, as he is the evil still restrained. In that sense, a vote for the “lesser evil” becomes a vote for the candidate that is nearest to heaven and furthest from hell.
The restraint may be limited, and not as effective or encompassing as one would like, but if it restrains more evil than the other, then it is, at the very least, one station closer to where we should all like to be.
The rationale that guides those who vote for less-than-ideal candidates is not an endorsement for the evil permitted, but an effort to maintain, or even strengthen, some restraint on evil.
For many, voting for the “lesser of two evils” means choosing what’s nearest to the good. If the train can’t take us to our desired destination, the nearest stop is still a step in the right direction. You may not agree with the rationale, but we can at least acknowledge the difference between a vote for more evil and a vote for less.
