- Mar 22, 2011
- 8,460
- 5,268
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
I will be voting, for the candidate whose platform and leadership best reflect my values.
In one of the stewardship parables (Lk 19), the ruler says to his followers, "occupy until I return". The verb used there is pragmateuomai, from which we get "pragmatic". The context is that there were many in the country who opposed the ruler's rightful reign. Life was going to be difficult until the ruler returns. Big victories would be fewer than they would like, and choices not always ideal. They were going to have to weigh options and make acceptable compromises, without violating first principles, in order to keep hope alive and the end goal viable.
That is the attitude I take into politics, not unrestrained idealism. But is there a scenario where I wouldn't vote for a viable candidate? Yes. Are we there now? Not by my lights.
We have a candidate who is strongly pro-life, pro First Amendment (including both speech and religion), pro Second Amendment, who has strengthened our defenses, is extracting us from wars, fighting terrorism, corrected massive trade imbalances and in the process brought an evil burgeoning major world power to its economic knees, made dramatic overtures toward world peace, raised our economy from the doldrums, freed us from globalist international entanglements, is making strides in health care, drug prices, and prison reform, and much more.
At the same time, I find his opposition completely unacceptable on nearly every count.
Am I not to vote for this person because some of his tweets are indefensible? To my way of thinking, pragmatism and perspective deem that very unwise, indeed.
I'm in NY, so my vote will not have the electoral effect as that of some others. But unless all choices are unacceptable, which I don't believe to be the case, it is important to vote anyway, on principle.
In one of the stewardship parables (Lk 19), the ruler says to his followers, "occupy until I return". The verb used there is pragmateuomai, from which we get "pragmatic". The context is that there were many in the country who opposed the ruler's rightful reign. Life was going to be difficult until the ruler returns. Big victories would be fewer than they would like, and choices not always ideal. They were going to have to weigh options and make acceptable compromises, without violating first principles, in order to keep hope alive and the end goal viable.
That is the attitude I take into politics, not unrestrained idealism. But is there a scenario where I wouldn't vote for a viable candidate? Yes. Are we there now? Not by my lights.
We have a candidate who is strongly pro-life, pro First Amendment (including both speech and religion), pro Second Amendment, who has strengthened our defenses, is extracting us from wars, fighting terrorism, corrected massive trade imbalances and in the process brought an evil burgeoning major world power to its economic knees, made dramatic overtures toward world peace, raised our economy from the doldrums, freed us from globalist international entanglements, is making strides in health care, drug prices, and prison reform, and much more.
At the same time, I find his opposition completely unacceptable on nearly every count.
Am I not to vote for this person because some of his tweets are indefensible? To my way of thinking, pragmatism and perspective deem that very unwise, indeed.
I'm in NY, so my vote will not have the electoral effect as that of some others. But unless all choices are unacceptable, which I don't believe to be the case, it is important to vote anyway, on principle.
Upvote
0
