Dr. Christopher Peters

Dr. Christopher Peters
Dr. Christopher Peters

One of my goals when I decided to run for Congress this year was to elevate our political discourse. Throughout the campaign, I’ve rejected partisan talking points in favor of nuanced and realistic discussions about the issues that matter here in Iowa’s 2nd District.

My campaign team and I have tried to avoid discussing the presidential election. Some Democrats accused me of endorsing Trump because I wouldn’t disavow him, while some Republicans accused me of disavowing Trump because I wouldn’t endorse him. As an independent-minded Republican in a Democrat-leaning district, I hoped to make the point that presidential politics shouldn’t dominate our political conversations to the extent that it has.

A large number of former and current Republican politicians have now disavowed Trump. All of them have far more political clout than I do, and to be honest, I don’t think people should care so much about what I think. But I cannot avoid the issue any longer.

Donald Trump’s remarks about women that surfaced last week – along with his well-documented pattern of disparaging remarks about women, minorities, and other groups – demonstrate disturbing character deficiencies. My wife and I have three teenage sons, and if I ever learned that any of them grew up to be men who conduct themselves like Trump, I would be deeply disappointed. I trust that my wife Julie and I have raised them better than that.

Trump’s behavior and temperament are only a part of the problem. He has repeatedly demonstrated a poor grasp of constitutionalism, civil rights, the rule of law, the role of diplomacy versus military interventionism, and even fundamental economics. I should have spoken out against him much earlier, and regret that I failed to do so.

Neither Trump nor Hillary Clinton have exhibited the character and judgment necessary to be president, and I cannot vote for either of them.

These are two of the most unpopular political figures of our time, but this isn’t just about them. Any system that would select these two candidates as the choices for president is deeply flawed and is in need of fundamental reform.

I have been warmly welcomed by most Iowa Republicans since I decided earlier this year to run for Congress on the GOP ticket and I remain ready to work with them, both during this campaign and throughout my time in Congress. I grew up in a Republican household, I’ve supported many Republican candidates over my lifetime, and my staff is made up of young Republicans.

But like most Americans and most Iowans, my views don’t fully align with either party’s platform.

When I get to Congress, I’ll get to work on a set of reforms that address the structural defects that have made our political process so toxic. They include lowering barriers for third-party candidates, restricting the influence of money in politics, and exploring major changes to our voting system. More details about those plans are available at my website, DrPetersForIowa.com.

I won’t begrudge or shame anyone for whom they chose to vote for. But to those supporting a candidate they see as the “lesser of two evils,” I ask this – how many more elections will we have to vote this way? Does voting this way bring us closer to fixing our political system, or push us further away? And most importantly, what will you do in the next four years to help?

The presidential campaign has become a colossal distraction from the many other races happening around our state. My team and I plan to resume focusing on the issues important to Iowans. Regardless of who wins the presidential election, we will need strong and principled legislators to stand up to whatever nonsense might emanate from the White House in the next four years.

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Sign up to receive stimulating conservative Christian commentary in your inbox.

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
  1. There’s more to person’s decision to vote than the “lesser of two evils”. And judging by your opinion of Trump, you cannot seem to fathom that he has some very appealing and good qualities. It’s very disappointing to see what appears to be a candidate I would have voted for get his info from the likes of CNN and other establishment leaders that don’t really care about their constituents. News flash: you’ll never get elected running as a Democrat-lite in this district. They’ll just pick the Democrat. All this fecklessness will do is potentially alienate your base and the Trumpocrats which Hillary has alienated. If happen to win because Trump carried the state, you can thank all of the other down ballot voters that are more gracious than myself, because your lack of spine in voting for your party’s nominee is the reason you won’t receive my vote and anyone else I convince.

  2. I hope you reconsider your decision to abstain from voting for Donald Trump. He may be unpolished as a candidate, but he is far superior to Clinton.
    Our enemy is the Democratic Party and we should stand united to defeat our enemy.
    You will still get my vote because any Republican is better than any Democrat.
    Please reconsider.

    1. Darrell, I don’t think we know each other, so I don’t know if you are a Christian or not.

      If you are I want to challenge you with this – read Ephesians 6:12 and then answer this question – who is our enemy?

      If you are not well that is an entirely different conversation we can have if you like, one that is far more important than the presidential election.

      1. We do wrestle with wickedness in high places. The Supreme Court is at stake in this election, do you want a pro abortion, anti second amendment, socialist selecting the members that make up the new court?
        I do believe that Donald Trump loves our Republic; I cannot say the same for Clinton.

  3. Mr. Peters must be pretty stupid. To say he won’t vote is disgusting, a candidate who supports 3rd trimester abortions, talks down about Catholics & Christians! Mr. Peters, what the heck is wrong with your brain?

    1. I can’t say I’ve met a stupid surgeon in my lifetime. It takes quite a bit of hubris to refer to someone in his position as stupid. Holding a different position than you doesn’t make them stupid, it just means you don’t disagree. I think he wants his race to be about issues not who he is voting for in November.

      Also he didn’t say he wouldn’t vote. He just said he wouldn’t vote at the top of the ballot. I’d suggest he find a 3rd party candidate to support instead of just leaving it blank though.

      I know he and I disagree on social issues, but where has he disparaged Christians and Catholics?

  4. This is one of the most thoughtful, well-reasoned statement of position I have read from a politician. There can be few more significant objectives for a Congressman than his at this time:
    o lowering barriers for third-party candidates
    o restricting the influence of money in politics
    o exploring major changes to our voting system

    This is far more important than understandably deciding to not vote for an arguably flawed candidate — even if you support that candidate.

  5. I am also abstaining. Since it is my right to vote, it is also within my right to not render that vote. Both sides are delusional and self-indulging. Whoever wins will be a one term POTUS. Mark it.

Comments are closed.

You May Also Like

Donald Trump Bails on the Fox News Debate

Shane Vander Hart: Donald Trump doesn’t have the courage to take questions from Megyn Kelly yet we are to believe he is ready to take on Vladmir Putin?

Bob Vander Plaats and Chuck Hurley Endorse Rick Santorum (Updated)

The FAMiLY Leader as an organization will not endorse, but the board…

Less Than 48 Hours Away! Jindal, Huckabee & Santorum at #CTBriefing2015

Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) to headline the Caffeinated Thoughts Briefing Saturday.

Sarah Palin: “I Do Have That Fire In My Belly”

Well if former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) decides to run for President…