AMAC Exclusive – By David P. Deavel
We are mere weeks from a possible red wave. Some smart people are even talking about a “red tsunami” coming. To ensure that the wave tends in that larger direction, it is important to be prepared for the tricks the Democratic Media complex will throw at voters who sensibly plan on voting both against the Democrats and for the Republicans. They are going to be trying to trick conservative voters based on arguments that appeal to good but mistaken impulses toward integrity and moderation.
Voters should not be distracted by things like possible scandals in the past of candidates, the fact that their candidates are themselves not ideologically perfect in every case, or the shiny cultural trophies held out by our political culture as rewards for being “balanced” and not “extreme” by voting for candidates who claim to be “moderate.” They need to be ready to fend off arguments based on these scenarios both for themselves and for others who are tempted by them. Voting is reserved to adults, but it’s easy for adults to channel their inner 15-year-old and give in to the peer pressure of bad arguments. The following will attempt to sort through these too-clever-by-half arguments so that voters can behave like adults and make rational decisions.
The Integrity of Your Candidate’s Moral Record. October surprises are nothing new. They usually involve some past wrongdoing or alleged wrongdoing that is trotted out by the opposing campaign in an attempt to guilt voters into voting for the opponent—or at least not voting for the candidate.
The first thing to observe about these surprise claims is that it is not always clear whether they are true or not. You can get people to “remember” a lot of things about a politician if you pay them. So it’s best not to get too excited about mudslinging claims before the facts come out.
But the second thing to remember is that even if the claims about some past indiscretion or wrongdoing are true, this does not mean you are morally obligated not to vote for the person. Herschel Walker has been accused of paying for an abortion for a woman with whom he had a sexual relationship. Is it true? I don’t know, but is it really important for the Georgia voter to know? I don’t think it is.
At this point, some reader will react in horror, perhaps noting that I teach theology and am proposing an amoral political calculus. But I’m really not. The moral component in voting has to do with how a candidate stands to vote on matters of public concern. Walker’s opponent, incumbent Democrat Raphael Warnock may be a Christian minister, but like all Democrats he is in favor of the abortion license, the Equality Act (which would, if passed, put “gender identity” into Title IX of the Civil Rights Act), and all gun control. Walker is against all of these things.
Not only that, but Warnock is no angel. Through his church he helps run a “low-income housing” building that has broken elevators, is filled with pests, and has served eviction notices to people who owe as little as twenty-eight dollars. Some “ally for the poor.” In addition, as the Washington Examiner notes, the church “paid [Warnock] a $7,417-per-month, tax-free housing allowance last year—an arrangement that allowed him to circumvent federal limits on outside income for U.S. senators.”
Adults realize their candidates are not perfected saints. They also realize that the other side’s candidates aren’t either. The important thing is whether the candidate will do the work for the moral and sane policies they favor.
The Integrity of Your Candidate’s Ideology. Herschel Walker is ideologically more my cup of tea than Pennsylvania Senate candidate Mehmet Oz, who doesn’t have much of a track record as a conservative. I don’t think I would have voted for him in a primary. I don’t think that Mehmet Oz is the second coming of Donald Trump, but the option is not Oz or Trump. The option is Oz or John Fetterman, a disastrously “progressive” Democrat. Or whoever gets put on the ballot by the Democrats at the last minute, given Fetterman’s health.
I may have disliked John McCain for some of his policies and his betrayals of the Republican Party, but once he was on the ballot I would have voted for the guy who regularly got an 80% Conservative Union score over a Democratic candidate who has a 0% conservative record. I want Republicans to have control of the Senate and get to consent—or in this case not consent—to
judges and pass on bills for Joe Biden to sign or not sign. Mehmet Oz may well be disappointing in many ways. But you know what? Not having the Senate will be a lot more disappointing. Voting for an imperfect candidate may not give one the best feeling, but it’s what adults do when they understand the system.
Come On—Be Moderate About Your Voting. It’s tough to be a conservative these days since the Democratic Media Complex is always telling you you’re an “extremist.” There can be lots of pressure from Democrats and your squishy Republican friends to just be “moderate” and vote for a Democrat who claims to embody that moderation in “nuanced” views.
First, let’s stipulate, as the lawyers say, that this is even true in some case. What matters in elections to legislative bodies is not just whether some candidate has some “nuanced” position but whether they can or even will advance something like what we want. The reality is that right now the Democratic Party has swung so far in the direction of economic, biological, educational, and legal insanity that a “nuanced” Democrat who managed to get elected would have no way of swaying his or her party. Prolife Democrats are nearly gone. Democrats who oppose the transgender agenda are gone. Democrats for border security and fiscal sanity are gone. So, even supposing you found a True Moderate, voting for this unicorn will give that party more power to enact policies that are far, far from moderate.
But let’s face it: almost all of this moderation talk is simply, in Bill Clinton’s immortal terminology, “boob bait for bubbas.” Joe Manchin talks up his worries about the direction of his party, but in the end…he votes for the Inflation Reduction Act. The same goes with all major Democratic politicians these days. They may come in as Renegades, but they all end up as the Meek Sheep of “Progressive” Pastures ready to approve a trillion here, a trillion there, and then squash American energy and push abortion.
Voting in American elections is an adult act. It’s not the kind of voting that teenagers do for prom king and queen. Not liking somebody in our party—even for good reasons—is not a reason not to vote for him except in extreme circumstances. So, too, liking somebody in the other party—even assuming good reasons—is not really a reason to vote for him except in extreme circumstances. We vote for people who will do a job and advance our position. That means taking into account not only the individual but the position of the party that serves our interests better. Anything less than this is neither morally more sophisticated nor moderate. It is childish.
David P. Deavel is Associate Professor of Theology at the University of St. Thomas in Houston, Texas, and a Senior Contributor at The Imaginative Conservative.