- Feb 5, 2002
- 185,225
- 67,911
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
It is understandable that many social conservatives have concluded that, Trump’s faults notwithstanding, they must vote for him in order to prevent a Harris/Walz victory. The argument is a serious one. But the matter is not as straightforward as they suppose.
Let’s begin with the obvious. No social conservative could possibly justify voting for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. They are pro-abortion extremists, as Ryan Anderson shows in an article on Harris at First Things and Dan McLaughlin shows in an article on Walz at National Review. Their records on other matters of concern to social conservatives are no better. It goes without saying that they are absolutely beyond the pale.
Despite his recent betrayal of social conservatives, Donald Trump remains less bad on these issues. Indeed, his appointments to the Supreme Court made possible the overturning of Roe v. Wade. It is understandable that many social conservatives have concluded that, his faults notwithstanding, they must vote for him in order to prevent a Harris/Walz victory. The argument is a serious one. But the matter is not as straightforward as they suppose, because the problem is not merely that Trump will no longer do anything to advance the pro-life cause. It is that his victory would likely do positive harm, indeed grave and lasting damage, to the pro-life cause and to social conservatism in general.
For that reason, a case can also be made for voting for neither Harris nor Trump. Yes, a reasonable person could judge that the case for voting for him is stronger. But before drawing that conclusion, it is imperative for social conservatives carefully to weigh the costs, no less than the benefits, of supporting him. And it is imperative for those who do decide to vote for him not to simply close ranks and quietly acquiesce to his betrayal of social conservatives. They must loudly, vigorously, and persistently protest this betrayal and do everything in their power to mitigate it.
Continued below.
www.catholicworldreport.com
Let’s begin with the obvious. No social conservative could possibly justify voting for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. They are pro-abortion extremists, as Ryan Anderson shows in an article on Harris at First Things and Dan McLaughlin shows in an article on Walz at National Review. Their records on other matters of concern to social conservatives are no better. It goes without saying that they are absolutely beyond the pale.
Despite his recent betrayal of social conservatives, Donald Trump remains less bad on these issues. Indeed, his appointments to the Supreme Court made possible the overturning of Roe v. Wade. It is understandable that many social conservatives have concluded that, his faults notwithstanding, they must vote for him in order to prevent a Harris/Walz victory. The argument is a serious one. But the matter is not as straightforward as they suppose, because the problem is not merely that Trump will no longer do anything to advance the pro-life cause. It is that his victory would likely do positive harm, indeed grave and lasting damage, to the pro-life cause and to social conservatism in general.
For that reason, a case can also be made for voting for neither Harris nor Trump. Yes, a reasonable person could judge that the case for voting for him is stronger. But before drawing that conclusion, it is imperative for social conservatives carefully to weigh the costs, no less than the benefits, of supporting him. And it is imperative for those who do decide to vote for him not to simply close ranks and quietly acquiesce to his betrayal of social conservatives. They must loudly, vigorously, and persistently protest this betrayal and do everything in their power to mitigate it.
Continued below.
Donald Trump has put social conservatives in a dilemma
www.catholicworldreport.com
