The Worst Argument For a Bad Candidate: Irrational Hope

How was he doing? “Tolerable,” was the old man’s response. If you are a Christian in government, that is your goal. How is your candidate?

Tolerable.

Sadly, Americans do not always get to choose between tolerable candidates. Imagine having to choose between a Democratic former Secretary of State with deep moral problems and an erratic Republican with a temperament unfit for office.

That was your choice in 1856 and that wasn’t tolerable.

Some suggest you should find the lesser of two evils and vote for him. We tried that many times in church history with dreadful results. One of the worst was when Stalin was killing millions of Christians. What could be worse than that? Too often we voted for Hitler or Mussolini types (or even Franco!) because nothing could be worse than Stalin. Not only was this wrong, but we became tarred with the association. The church of the martyrs got used by the fascists who hated us any way.

Never vote for the lesser of two evils unless you wish to be responsible for evil.

Yet some good friends have defended a vote for Fremont (who after all probably got our family ballot in 1856). They have said: We know Buchanan will be bad (look at his record). Fremont is not a politician and he says the right things. We will get better justices than Taney, and Jeff Davis will not be in his cabinet.

This seems persuasive until you think about it.

Any reasonable person could see that Fremont was . . . erratic. Making him Commander in Chief would have cost us the Civil War and most importantly doomed millions of African-Americans to decades more enslavement.

Buchanan was, however, the most incompetent President in US history. He was ineffectual, decadent, and limp in the face of the coming conflict.

Why not vote Fremont?

He is unfit for office, but Buchanan is more unfit. Isn’t there hope in Fremont?

There is where a virtue, hope, separated from wisdom becomes a means for good men to do very bad things.

Let’s examine the possible outcomes in voting for Fremont:

First, Fremont might win and surprise us with a good cabinet and excellent justices. Dred Scott might be avoided!

Second, Fremont might win and act erratically and so lose the “irrepressible conflict” that Lincoln won.

Third, Fremont might lose.

In two of the three cases voting for Fremont is a bad idea. If Fremont loses in any case, why publically associate our cause with an erratic man?

Imagine a newspaper editor in 1856 (a talk radio host of 2016!) who backed Fremont. When Abraham Lincoln came around in 1860, he would need all the help he could get. Sadly, the editor would have beclowned himself with Fremont.

If Fremont loses, then all the moral compromise necessary to swallow hard and vote Fremont was for nothing. To sell your soul for victory and then lose is worse than Esau: at least he got the soup.

In the second case, Fremont wins! The GOP is triumphant. Sadly, Fremont does what reasonable people would expect an erratic man to do: he is erratic.  Now we have not only failed, but we have harmed the Republic.

To sell your virtue for the White House, get it, and then ruin the White House is the worst outcome.

Imagine the first case: Fremont wins and surprises us all. He is a good President. He appoints good justices and wins the War. This is good and we are justified.

Or are we?

We will have taught the Republic a very bad lesson. Character and fitness do not matter. We can bet on luck . . .and the audacity of irrational hope to carry the day. The next Fremont that comes along . . .a con man with snake oil to sell . . .will not work out so well, but we will keep waiting for Fremont.

Our luck in the short term, against all evidence, will have produced a gambler’s mentality. Anybody is fit for office. Why wait for honest Abe when you can have flashy Fremont?

In short, if a man is unfit for office, then he should never get our vote.

So what should we do? The virtue of a republican is patience. Wait. Trust what integrity can do. A better man will come if not this year, then in 1860. If we are one election from doom, the Republic cannot be saved in any case. Conservatives after all do not think politics is that potent!

Most of all, there is no case in Christian ethics for voting for Fremont just to save us from Buchanan. Times will get tough, they usually are, but if we refuse to do evil that good may come, then when evil comes, we will be ready to help.

That will be tolerable.