Steve Deace of WHO Radio wrote a blog post today that got me thinking… he said:

One of the national bloggers I’ve been reading lately is Erick Erickson of RedState.  Unlike me, Erickson appears to still be a partisan Republican who views defeating Democrats as the primary goal. On the other hand, I think my mission is to live out my faith as consistently as I can by the grace of God and trust a sovereign God to work things out for His glory in response to my faithfulness. While I certainly don’t make it a habit to vote for Democrats because I believe most of their beliefs are contrary to a Christian worldview (not to mention the U.S. Constitution), I’m also voting for fewer Republicans these days for the same reasons.

Still, what I do like about Erickson’s “lesser of two evils” mindset, even though I don’t necessarily share it, is that he’s willing to at least hold Republicans accountable on some level and also isn’t bashful about taking sides in primaries. Erickson will still vote for RINOs as the lesser of two evils, but he’d prefer not to have to do that so he sees primaries as the means by which to separate the wheat from the tares. So in my opinion he’s at least a step in the right direction from the typical conservative media that has confused the G-O-P with the G-O-D.

A couple of questions came to mind when I read this.

Is it somehow more noble to let somebody else choose for you in a general election if you are faced with less ideal candidates?  I know sometimes there are third party candidates who people can vote for, but sometimes there is not.  Like it or not we are still a two party system in the United States and the likelihood of a third party candidate being elected is slim and none (unless you live in Minnesota – all bets are off there) so typically, in most cases, voting third party is letting somebody else choose for you.

Is that exercising proper Christian citizenship when we do this?

Then the statement about voting for somebody with a Christian worldview… what if the person who lines up the closest in worldview is less competent candidate?  Somebody also may line up in beliefs and “values,” but not necessarily character.  What to do then?  Sometimes their conduct and treatment of others is less than Christ-like even though they say all the right things.

I’m reminded of a quote often attributed to Martin Luther – “I would rather be governed by a wise turk (non-Christian) than a foolish Christian.”

Is that a correct position to have?  What say you?

**Though some would like to pigeonhole me, I’m not labeling any candidate as a “wise turk” or a “foolish Christian.”  So any inference to any candidate is your own, not mine.

You May Also Like

Silver Linings

It would be easy to be dismayed by what happened in 2012, but conservatives can and should see some silver linings as 2012 comes to a close.

How to Address the Problem of Separating Families at the Border

Shane Vander Hart: Media coverage of families being separated on the U.S. Southern border has been dismal and overlooks facts. Congress can act to remedy this crisis and still follow the rule of law.

Kavanaugh Confirmation Vote Will Be Difficult for Red State Democrats

President Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court could prove to be problematic for Democrat U.S. Senators in red states who want to vote no on confirmation.

Terry Branstad Is An Excellent Choice for Ambassador to China

Shane Vander Hart gives seven reasons why President-elect Donald Trump made a good choice appointing Iowa Governor Terry Branstad to be Ambassador to China.