THE AMISH OPTION?

What to do?  What to do?  Christians of all stripes are faced with an uncomfortable decision of either voting for (depending on your point of view) a racist demagogue or a lying crook November 8.  Of course, it is not just Christians.  The entire American public shares this dilemma—a truly catch-22 if there ever was one.  But it is for Christians we will focus our present comments.

Not that either candidate lack for enthusiastic Christians who will vote will for them without reservations.  These breakdown into the usual predictable partisan actors we have all come to know and love.  It is fair to say, however, it is more out of devotion to Trump or Clinton’s respective policy positions than any actual love for either one.   The fact is lending support to either candidate often means turning a willful blind eye to Trump or Clinton’s grim culpabilities. 

At this point, the Clinton insiders are so confident of eminent victory that they are measuring the White House for drapes.  Indeed, it seems those reporting and commenting on the election believe it is all but over and are preparing to celebrate the inauguration of this nation’s first woman President.  It is also true that Trump is stealthily cutting into Clinton’s lead with some predicting an upset of the likes of the recent Brexit vote in England.

Many prominent and many not-so ditinguished Christians have made the argument that a Christian cannot vote for Trump without seriously compromising their Christian witness.  More to the point, they make the allegation that supporting Trump involves totally abandoning (if only temporarily) one’s Christian values.  These Christian anti-Trumper’s can be quite persuasive.  The problem is that, if supporting Trump damages one’s Christian witness, the very same contention can be made for supporting Clinton.  While unsavory revelations of Trump’s mistreatment of women roll out daily, nasty exposures of Clinton’s duplicity and criminal activity continue to mount everyday as well.

The usual actors dependably assert that those on the right embrace the devil in all his works and ways.  Likewise, other actors, as surely as the sun rises in the east, assert that those on the left are in an unholy marriage with the approaching Anti-Christ.  In part, Trump will bring a hostility and diabolical “inhospitality” toward illegal immigrants (or “undocumented workers”, “unauthorized persons”, etc. whatever is the current euphemism for people who cross America’s national borders in violation its immigration laws).  He will also ensconce Wall Street in the very heart of Washington.  Clinton will bring a coercive animus using the power of government toward second amendment rights.  She will also institutionalize a more serious animosity toward religious liberty.  (She may not attack religious liberties personally it is said; but she will not stand in the way of those who seek to undermine religious liberties in order to advance some secular agenda.)  Of no slight concern is the sort of judges each would nominate to the Supreme and Federal courts.

Some Christian writers have assumed a “pox on both houses” stance—declaring genuine Christians cannot support either Trump or Clinton.  “We must bring an authentic Christian witness to the political process”.  Exactly what they mean by this is somewhat vague.  More to the point, what is the “genuine Christian” to do in the voting booth November 8^th?  Vote Libertarian or Green?  Neither one by their own design bring a Christian witness to the nation.  At best, both Libertarians and Greens harbor deep suspicions of any Christian political activism.  Are we to write-in some figure on the ballot who will “bring an authentic Christian witness” to our troubled nation?  And just who would that be?

These same “pox on both houses” Christian divines object the suggestion that they are advancing some version of Christian quietism—in effect, withdrawing from the main stage of political debate.  But, using a poker image, how does one engage in the game if you refuse to play by the cards that are dealt?  Again, these divines offer little practical advice of what the Christian is to do in the voting booth.

Some, like Rod Dreher, on the other hand, declare that the game is up.  The culture wars are over and orthodox Christianity has lost.  The abortion regime is thoroughly entrenched.  It won’t change because we can’t change.  We can’t “compromise”.  We can’t seek a “middle ground”.  The Supreme Court has all but totally foreclosed any political deliberation on abortion—even the most extreme abortion procedures such as partial birth terminations are protected.  Same-sex marriages are a fiat accompli by judicial injunction and its long march through both public and private institutions continue apace toward total victory.  (The ELCA not only allows sex-same marriages; but has produced its own SSM liturgy.)  Christianity in America has ceased to be a conveyance of subversive transformation of a secular and materialistic America.  It is only when the Church carries the water for secular causes that it finds any measure of acceptance.

Dreher has predicted that a dark night of hostility and persecution is about to descend on churches and organizations faithful to orthodox Christianity.  Indeed, that dark night has already arrived.  Dreher and others advocate orthodox Christians who want to maintain their faith should separate themselves to some degree from mainstream society and try to live in intentional communities or other subcultures.  He refers to this as the “Benedict option”.  I don’t think Dreher himself would say this; but it would seem the Amish would be a model that comes to mind.

Two weeks out, incriminations and the long knives are being drawn within each candidate’s respective parties.  If Clinton should lose, fault will be laid at the feet of those who insisted on putting forth who is largely unlikable as a person.  These will be relegated into the political wilderness for time—some perhaps permanently.

Of more profound repercussions will be what happens to the Republican Party if Trump should lose.  Many Republicans in Washington assume matters will settle back to business as usual once the party finally gets Trump out of its system.  However, much of the blame will be set of the feet of the party’s Never-Trumpers—especially those who made a point of voicing their support for Clinton in the national media.  

It is to be remembered that several prominent conservatives came out support of Obama in 2008.  One thinks of the likes of Colin Powell, Christopher Buckley, and Peggy Noonan.  While each continue to publish, they are no longer welcome nor taken seriously in most conservative circles.  Obama has been a disaster for conservative causes and the promised improvement in race relations failed to materialize—indeed, one could straightforwardly argue race relations are the worst they have been in years.  We have gone backward…not forward. 

 Those who support Clinton in this round are likely to seen as Benedict Arnolds for failing to support the choice of the majority of Republican voters.  Such demonstrations of bad faith will not be seen as an “I told you so” vindication in the election’s aftermath.  As a Clinton administration advances its agenda, the bitter divisions within the Republican Party will be exacerbated.  This may please many to no end.  A reduction in the opposition to the progressive agenda will be most welcome.  But, if one believes in the principles of limited government, one will have a rough go of it. 

What do I myself say to you?  The short of it is that I am in deathly fear of what Hillary Clinton will do to the Republic.  My liberal friends are shocked that, given all my grave misgivings and distaste for Donald Trump, I will not eagerly pull the level for her.   They are genuinely befuddled that I really believe we will lose some rights and constitutional protections in a Clinton administration.  Right or wrong, those are my settled conclusions.

Many have advanced that viewpoint that there is no guarantee Trump will abide by his professed conservative principles once in office.  That may be.  But, as Thomas Sowell has put it, voting for Trump may be like playing Russian roulette.  With one bullet loaded in one of the six chambers, one has a fair chance that one will not blow one’s head off when he pulls the trigger.  With Hillary, it is like putting the muzzle of a loaded double barrel shotgun in your mouth and then pulling the trigger.   We may not know what Trump will do.  But, with Hillary Clinton, we have no doubt what she will do.