On Trump's "Pro Life" and Johnson's "Pro Choice" Stances

The 2016 Republican nominee for President has caused many to pause and consider where their vote should go this November.

For many, Governor Gary Johnson has become a possibility.  

Objection:  Gary Johnson is "pro choice"

One thing I notice over and over again as people give Gov. Johnson a serious look, is that many get snagged by his "pro choice" stance on abortion.  This is especially true among those who share my Christian worldview.

Counter Question:  Is Trump Pro Life?

The question I believe one could most naturally ask in response to this objection is:  "Which candidate in 2016's election is pro life?"

The only possibility is Donald Trump.  But an extremely valid follow-up question is, "Donald Trump pro life"?

I won't restate what's already been recorded regarding his various positions on abortion.  He's had at least a couple (or five) evolutions on his stance.  Also to be noted, abortion is not listed as one of the issues he's chosen to publish on his campaign website (this should indicate to voters where his "pro life" policy falls on his priority list...)

Instead I'll focus on the latest statement he's made that clarifies he seems to mean when he says he's "pro life".  

Mr. Trump has stated that he, "like Ronald Reagan, [is] pro-life with exceptions."

"With... exceptions..." Interesting...

The Implication of "Exceptions"

What do "exceptions" imply?

"Exceptions", at the very least, mean: The subject is complicated.  So complicated that in Mr. Trump's mind, it's too complicated for government to wisely intervene and decide "this is best for your life" in all instances.

To act wisely in any situation requires knowledge, and for the government to have knowledge to act wisely in all instances for a given policy is... well... near 0% probability.

Mr. Trump refers to incest... rape... when the life of the mother is in jeopardy... the classic complicated cases where even some Christians struggle and say, "Man... wow... this is a tough, tough call to make."

So... if you can even semi-remotely agree that the topic is less black and white than many make it out to be, you can understand Mr. Trump's stance.  If you can't, then you must conclude that Mr. Trump is not "pro life" -- at least not in the sense that you, yourself, are "pro life".

But if you can semi-remotely agree that the topic is less black and white than many make it out to be, I contend that you can also understand Governor Johnson's stance.

Why?

Similar Stances

The stances are very, very similar.

I don't speak for Gary Johnson, but if I can state an observation: It seems to me that the challenge he's posing is precisely this: Making very complicated, very personal health decisions is something that the government is extremely incompetent at.

These decisions are often so complicated, that in some situations, exceptions would have to be allowed.  And if some situations would need exceptions, how are the exceptions decided upon?  Why are some exceptions excluded while others are adopted?

Do you see the point?

The Libertarian Mindset

The Libertarian mindset almost always challenges the role of government in our lives and in our personal choices.  All the government can do is pass broad, sweeping legislation that inevitably results in overreach.  Government is really, really bad at this whole "exceptions" thing.  Which is probably why Gary Johnson says, "Get the government out of the decision in the first place!"

So whether you say, "The government needs to make exceptions when legislating this issue", or you say, "The fact that the government would need to make exceptions, proves that it shouldn't be legislating this issue in the first place due to its personal and complicated nature", you're not that far off from saying almost the same thing.

A Personal Note

For what it's worth, I actually disagree with Governor Johnson on this policy point, because I believe the Constitution forbids the denial of life without due process of law.  I'm no Constitutional lawyer, that's for certain, but a plain reading leads me to conclude that we ought to be protecting human life wherever it exists, both the mother's and the child's, whenever possible.

This is not to minimize the complexity of the issue -- it is to say that I think government has a role in the issue because we, the people, by means of the Constitution, grant it that authority.  This is fundamentally where I part with traditional Libertarian mindset on this issue if I understand the mindset correctly.  But for me, the election is about far more than this single issue.

So I move on and look at the rest of the policies I can agree with... and my agreement with Gary Johnson is far higher than any other candidate on the ballot this year.

The Bottom Line

The bottom line is this:  Donald Trump isn't the kind of "pro life" that many Christians identify with.

If that's the case for you (ie, that "with exceptions" clause unsettles you), then I argue that no presidential candidate in 2016 is "pro life" like you're "pro life".

What, then, can you do?

1. You could concede that no significant progress toward your worldview's position on abortion will be made this election cycle and continue considering all of your options for President this fall, including Gary Johnson. 
2. If possible, consider more than just abortion in your analysis of the 2016 presidential candidates.  While I recognize this is a huge, huge issue for you (it is for me too!), this is one facet of the role of government in our everyday lives.  Wise voting takes into consideration the multitude of issues and variables that confront us.  To narrow the choice down to a single issue is, in my opinion, dangerously close to unwise.
3. If you just can't move past the issue of abortion, you could simply abstain from voting for President, but still vote for Congress and other ballot items.  Alternatively, so long as it won't invalidate your ballot, you could be free to write in a candidate who matches your views on abortion.

The one thing you shouldn't do is feel locked in to voting Donald Trump because he's "pro life", or feel as if you can't vote for Gary Johnson because he's "pro choice".  If you can stomach Trump's "with exceptions", you should be open Johnson's, "omit the need for exceptions by getting the government out to begin with!"

Read More

What Has Your Candidate Done to Earn Your Vote Today?

When is the last time you stopped and asked, "What has my candidate of choice done to earn my vote today?"

What is he or she saying, promoting, doing that convinces you that it is a good idea to hire him/her to the office of President of the United States or to Congress or to state or local government positions?

I did not ask, "How is he/she better than the other candidate(s)?"  The question I am posing is, "What is it about your candidate that resonates with you?"

Without even thinking of or mentioning anyone else that is running for the same office, what is it about who you plan to vote for that makes you say, "I'm on board with this person"?

Does your candidate stand on his or her own merit?  Or do you give pause and have to begin to justify your voting decision?

Lots of question marks in this short entry, but I think these are important questions to ask.  The honor of the offices we elect individuals to demands it.

Read More

Grudem's Entangled Ethic: Why Christians Are Not Obligated to Vote for Donald Trump

Dr. Grudem is well-known in the Christian community.  He is a respected theologian. I've personally read some of his Systematic Theology text and have deeply appreciated his wisdom. So when he comes out and says...

“As a professor who has taught Christian ethics for 39 years...[n]ow that Trump has won the GOP nomination, I think voting for Trump is a morally good choice.”

...I look upon it with alarm and hesitation.


I am responding to his article in Town Hall, now widely circulating the Christian community on social media outlets, wherein he makes an attempt to defend the notion that Mr. Trump is "a morally good choice" for Christian voters.

“Morally good choice”, is he? Caution, Christian. Think.

Grudem's Argument

Dr. Grudem’s argument hinges on a singular faulty premise and leads a necessarily faulty conclusion:

“If this election is close (which seems likely), then if someone votes for a write-in candidate instead of voting for Trump, this action will directly help Hillary Clinton, because she will need one less vote to win. Therefore the question that Christians should ask is this: Can I in good conscience act in a way that helps a liberal like Hillary Clinton win the presidency?” (emphasis added)

Take note of his premise and his follow-up conclusion:

• Premise: Voting 3rd party or writing in a candidate that your would-be good conscience allows you to vote for “will directly help Hillary Clinton” which would be morally evil (implied in his article). 
• Conclusion: A person cannot vote for a 3rd party candidate or write in a candidate and vote in good conscience. They are mutually exclusive actions.

The premise isn’t new. It isn’t even unique to dissatisfied Republicans. Democrats are saying the same thing, only their fear about voting 3rd party is that it helps Donald Trump. It’s the conclusion that I take particular issue with.

It is manipulative to say that a person must vote for Donald Trump if he/she is going to be voting with a good conscience.

To say that it is impossible for someone to vote with a good, clear conscience for Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein, or any other candidate he/she wishes to cast a vote for, is false and wrong.

Where Grudem Falters?

Why? Why is it false? Why is it wrong? Because the premise leading to the conclusion is false and wrong:


The premise is based on assumption that voting for [3rd Party Candidate] directly helps the [Dem/Rep Candidate], as he stated. Below are five reasons that I will argue make this premise incorrect.

1. The statement is illogical. Voting for [3rd Party Candidate] directly helps [3rd Party Candidate]. (period)
2. Underlying this notion is the assumption that a 3rd Party Candidate could never win. Not only is this untrue historically (Abraham Lincoln being the prime example of running as a 3rd party candidate in his time… and winning), but it is an extreme to say that a 3rd Party Candidate could never win. “Never”? Really? If one ever could win, it would be in 2016, when the nation is so divided and so fed up with the “two-party” political system. 
3. Neither current statistics nor history prove beyond reasonable doubt that voting for a 3rd party candidate would cause the presidency to be given to any other candidate. 
• Recent polls have presented conflicting conclusions - some say that Gary Johnson, for example, attracts more Democrat voters. Others say that Gary Johnson attracts more Republican voters. My interpretation? Those voters probably aren’t hard-line Democrats or Republicans in the first place, which causes me to point you back to bullet point #2.
  
  I, for one, am currently registered as a Republican. Ask me what I’m registered as after voter registration re-opens in September here in Oklahoma… It won’t be Republican or Democrat.
  
  My observation is that while many who can’t stomach the major parties right now won’t re-register, many will, in fact declare their independence from those parties’ candidates this fall. 
• As far as history goes: People often point to Perot and Nader as “spoiler” candidates who allowed Bill Clinton or George W. Bush to become President. Post-election analysis has not supported these conclusions. Joshua Leinsdorf’s analysis is illuminating in Ross Perot’s case, and the data simply doesn’t add up in Ralph Nader’s case. Chris Powell has an excellent summary analysis. The bottom line is this: One cannot be faithful to the data and say “___ cost ___ the election” or “___ allowed ___ to win the election”. It simply isn’t the case. It is unknown whether it would be the case in 2016. Don’t let fear inhibit rational analysis of your options in November.
4. It is unknown what voters who are considering a 3rd party candidate would do if they were forced to choose Clinton or Trump. Would disgruntled Republicans, with certainty, vote for Donald Trump? Would dissatisfied Democrats, with certainty, vote for Hillary Clinton? Would Independents, with certainty, vote for either of them? Would any/all stay home in protest?
• Since it is unknown what such a voter would do if he/she were not given a 3rd (or 4th) choice, it is unsafe to assume that his/her vote would count for any other candidate for the presidency. If you’re making Grudem’s argument, it’s definitely unsafe to assume that such a voter would vote for whichever candidate you feel needed it to defeat [the Enemy Candidate]. 
5. The argument is used as a silencer on those who want their voices to be heard. Asserting that one must stay within the two party system, when neither represent your beliefs or your conscience, is “saying your beliefs aren’t worth being represented. That you should silence your voice so theirs can be louder.”, as Gary Johnson puts it.

Concluding Remarks

For these five reasons, I have undertaken to persuade to you that it is a false and unfair premise to say that voting for a 3rd party candidate this fall “directly helps Hillary Clinton”. Therefore, I conclude that Dr. Grudem’s conclusion is similarly incorrect.

One can vote with a good and clear conscience for a 3rd party candidate this fall. In fact, I encourage a healthy, soul-searching analysis of the playing field.

I call on all Americans, especially my brothers and sisters in Jesus, to consider all of their options for the sake of conscience, before casting their vote this fall.

As for the remainder of Dr. Grudem’s article, I briefly say the following:

It is clear that Dr. Grudem believes that Hillary Clinton is the worst possible thing that could happen to our American Republic.

He assumes that the damage Hillary Clinton would cause to our nation is worse than the damage that Donald Trump would cause.

But while most agree that both candidates are extremely unpalatable and that both would negatively impact our nation, definitively stating which one would do the worst harm is much harder to assert with full confidence.

To point to either and say with confidence, “He’d be the worst” or “She’d be the worst” is, in my view, more difficult than Dr. Grudem makes it out to be.

• Dr. Grudem’s analysis focused primarily on one aspect of the power delegated to the President: To nominate Justices to the Supreme Court. He neglects to remind readers that the confirmation of such a nomination rests with the Senate. And not all Justices that are nominated are appointed (take President Obama’s recent nomination as the prime example if you will…)
• It is unknown whether or not our next President will have the opportunity to nominate any Supreme Court Justices, save for Justice Scalia’s replacement, assuming the Senate continues to abdicate its responsibility to hear and confirm/deny President Obama’s nomination to the Court.
• Taking into account all that could possibly happen during a President’s term in office, it is naive and simplistic to attribute the destiny of society fully to the President’s possible nominations to the Supreme Court.

Don’t be lured into contorting your conscience based solely on the “Supreme Court Argument”.

A Call to American Christians

If you're a Christian in America, I call on you to consider all of your options for the presidency.

Do not believe the lie that you must somehow bend your conscience to vote for an “egotistical, bombastic, brash, empty, insulting, vindictive, unfaithful” candidate (Grudem’s depiction, not mine) as the leader of your nation's executive branch when the literal opposite thereof exists in other legitimate candidates for President in this election year.

Read More

5 Reasons Why Voting for Gary Johnson Doesn't Mean Voting for Clinton or Trump

You've heard it, I've heard it, we've all heard it:  

"But voting for [3rd Party Candidate] means voting for [Clinton/Trump]!  You don't want [her/him] to win, do you??"

You should be free from fear to vote your with a clear conscience for whichever candidate you want to vote for in November.

To that end, I hope to persuade you with five reasons why this kind of assertion should be discarded:

1. The statement is illogical. Voting for [3rd Party Candidate] directly helps [3rd Party Candidate]. (period)
2. Underlying this notion is the assumption that a 3rd Party Candidate could never win. Not only is this untrue historically (Abraham Lincoln being the prime example of running as a 3rd party candidate in his time… and winning), but it is an extreme to say that a 3rd Party Candidate could never win. “Never”? Really? If one ever could win, it would be in 2016, when the nation is so divided and so fed up with the “two-party” political system. 
3. Neither current statistics nor history prove beyond reasonable doubt that voting for a 3rd party candidate would cause the presidency to be given to any other candidate. 
• Recent polls have presented conflicting conclusions - some say that Gary Johnson, for example, attracts more Democrat voters. Others say that Gary Johnson attracts more Republican voters. My interpretation? Those voters probably aren’t hard-line Democrats or Republicans in the first place, which causes me to point you back to bullet point #2.
  
  I, for one, am currently registered as a Republican. Ask me what I’m registered as after voter registration re-opens in September here in Oklahoma… It won’t be Republican or Democrat.
  
  My observation is that while many who can’t stomach the major parties right now won’t re-register, many will, in fact declare their independence from those parties’ candidates this fall. 
• As far as history goes: People often point to Perot and Nader as “spoiler” candidates who allowed Bill Clinton or George W. Bush to become President. Post-election analysis has not supported these conclusions. Joshua Leinsdorf’s analysis is illuminating in Ross Perot’s case, and the data simply doesn’t add up in Ralph Nader’s case. Chris Powell has an excellent summary analysis. The bottom line is this: One cannot be faithful to the data and say “___ cost ___ the election” or “___ allowed ___ to win the election”. It simply isn’t the case. It is unknown whether it would be the case in 2016. Don’t let fear inhibit rational analysis of your options in November.
4. It is unknown what voters who are considering a 3rd party candidate would do if they were forced to choose Clinton or Trump. Would disgruntled Republicans, with certainty, vote for Donald Trump? Would dissatisfied Democrats, with certainty, vote for Hillary Clinton? Would Independents, with certainty, vote for either of them? Would any/all stay home in protest?
• Since it is unknown what such a voter would do if he/she were not given a 3rd (or 4th) choice, it is unsafe to assume that his/her vote would count for any other candidate for the presidency. If you're a Republican or Democrat trying to convince a 3rd Party Voter to join your cause, it’s definitely unsafe to assume that said Voter would vote for whichever candidate you feel needed it to defeat [the Enemy Candidate]. 
5. The argument is used as a silencer on those who want their voices to be heard. Asserting that one must stay within the two party system, when neither represent your beliefs or your conscience, is “saying your beliefs aren’t worth being represented. That you should silence your voice so theirs can be louder.”, as Gary Johnson puts it.

Vote without fear this November.  Live free.

Read More

Who Would the Founding Fathers Vote For?

When you ask Americans today what the greatest threat to their individual liberties is, far too often the response is: “The government”. - Gov. Gary Johnson

What a travesty. Our government should not be a source of threat to individual freedom.  It should be the promoter and protector of it!

A question that I've asked myself a few times over during this election season is this:

Of the candidates running for office in 2016, who do you think the Founding Fathers would vote for?

• Hillary Clinton?
• Gary Johnson? 
• Jill Stein? 
• Donald Trump?

This would be my challenge to you:  ask this question to yourself.  Answer it with reasons.  If you say Clinton, why Clinton?  If Johnson, why Johnson?  Same with Stein and Trump.

Read the Constitution, read history, and ask for yourself which Presidential candidate in 2016 most aligns with what they valued... what they fought to establish for our great nation.

Read More

Term Limits: A Solution to the Corruption of the Career Politician

One of the issues that resonates with me from Governor Johnson's campaign is the concept of "term limits".  That is, limiting the amount of time that politicians can stay in office.

Year after year, we're wearied by the lack of change produced by our elected representatives.  Too may of them have been in office for too long.  Politics is their career.  It should not be.

Term limits are not a new concept.  After all, Presidents may serve only 8 years total.  Why shouldn't it be this way for congressmen, congresswomen, and senators?

Americans are increasingly frustrated, even angry, that — regardless of which political party is in control — nothing really changes in Washington, DC. The spending continues unchecked. The wars continue. Government keeps taking away more freedom... That’s why Gary Johnson is a strong advocate of term limits. Run for office, spend a few years doing the job at hand, and then return to private life. That’s what Gary Johnson did as Governor, and that’s what Senators and Representatives should do.

The major parties aren't going to give this to us (wonder why??).  Governor Johnson, however, would pursue this policy.  One that I believe would be a benefit to our nation.

Read More