Vote for Trump with a clear conscience but a heavy heart

By means of John Wesley ReidOpinion Contributor Wednesday October 30, 2024

“I would never ask anyone to vote against their conscience, but rather to reconsider how their conscience works.”

Conservatives, if you’re unsure whether to vote for Trump, you’re not alone. It’s okay to be angry at his political nonsense about abortion and IVF. It’s okay to feel betrayed by a policy cornerstone that was once pro-life.

It’s okay to wish this lesser evil was less evil.

Receive our latest news for FREE

Subscribe to receive daily/weekly email with the best stories (plus special offers!) from The Christian Post. Be the first to know.

Yet I hope to assure you that despite a heavy heart, we can vote for Trump with a clear conscience.

In 2016, we voted for “policy over character,” with an emphasis on abortion, and celebrated Trump’s victories on life. But with Trump’s appearance betrayal of pro-life valuesis it still worth voting for him?

Yes, for many reasons that I will discuss in this op-ed. I hope this message is found in a charitable way and that I can help conservatives navigate how to clear their consciences of the burden of voting in 2024.

Federal courts

While there likely won’t be a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) for the next term, here are some important points to consider:

• There are more than a hundred lower federal courts to which the president appoints judges.
• Since 2008There are 770 lower federal judges installed: 327 by President Obama, 212 by President Biden (so far), and 231 by President Trump. That’s an ideological split of 539-231.
• Harris would probably add over 200 more, making it 740+ to 231.
• SCOTUS reviews only about 100 of the approximately 7,500 case requests per year, meaning thousands of cases are finalized in the lower federal courts. This is how the president influences thousands of cases that never reach SCOTUS.
• Because these are seats for life, the president’s impact on lower federal matters lasts decades.
• Lower federal judges are often appointed by SCOTUS.
• SCOTUS does not often have original jurisdiction over federal law, meaning it cannot be the first to hear the case. Cases must be appealed to lower courts at SCOTUS. Still, there is no guarantee that SCOTUS will grant a review.
• If a fair-minded conservative president wins in 2028, their ability to govern fairly will be crippled by another four years of liberal judicial terms, as any fair-minded policies will inevitably be challenged in federal court.
• The federal judiciaries appointed by Trump have and will continue to rule conservatively.

Several major victories that directly impact our livelihoods have resulted from Trump’s judicial appointments.

Harris has condemned all these judicial victories.

Trans procedures for minors

The left focuses on today’s children because they are tomorrow’s voters. Allowing trans procedures for minors is undeniably bad and we should call it out without apology.

Trump promises to ban trans procedures for minors.

The Biden-Harris administrator called such a ban “cruel.”

Abortion

Trump’s refusal to ban abortion while criticizing states that do, and Melania Trump making that silly pro-abortion video, is appalling. Yet the pro-life movement is much better off with Trump than with Harris.

Why?

Because Trump is allowing pro-life leaders to sit at his table who have previously influenced his policies.

Assuming his pro-choice front is a ploy for moderate voices, here are some pro-life steps he could take:

• Remember, Trump removed Planned Parenthood from Title X, costing them $60 million. Three times he tried to take ALL their fed funds (~$550 million). Unfortunately, lame-duck Republican senators prevented this from happening. US Senator JD Vance, his running mate, said Trump would try again.
• Trump could restore states’ rights to defund Planned Parenthood, which he did during his first term.
• Going back to the lower federal judges, Trump’s appointees would far better serve a conservative president from 2028 with any pro-life policies they create. Again, the success of a conservative president in 2028 depends largely on the 2024 elections and the appointments that follow.
• Trump’s last administration was full of real pro-life ethicists and fighters. We can assume that his new government will be too.

Trump doesn’t have the attitude to be the pro-life hero we wanted, but his refusal to ban abortions (which would be virtually impossible anyway with the necessary support from Congress) undermines other pro-life actions he and his administration probably won’t nullify it.

Harris calls abortion a fundamental freedom – at any time and for any reason.

Protection of women’s sports

Women deserve their hard-earned athletic victories. But with Harris, the men will continue robbing women of their achievements. Ironic, since the left accuses the right of being misogynistic. The infiltration of men into women’s sports is textbook misogynistic oppression.

Trump does promised to ban men of participation in women’s sports.

Harris applauds the dishonesty.

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion

Harris condemned a SCOTUS ruling on freedom of speech protected everyone: Christians, atheists, LGBT, etc. 303 Creative against Elenis ruled that artists (cake bakers, graphic designers, etc.) cannot be forced to create designs that violate their beliefs.

Trump’s SCOTUS appointees protected free speech for all.

Harris belittled free speech for everyone.

Law

Love him or hate him, the way “justice” was severely weaponized against Trump should scare everyone. The new precedent is not that they can go after Trump, but that they can go after anyone – and they will do so with a biased and politically charged motive. One iota of political influence on justice erodes justice completely.

The egregious legal fees levied against Trump give him special incentive to clean some DOJ house.

Trump’s staff

Much of what conservatives appreciated about Trump’s first term was spearheaded by those he appointed. Remember, Trump is one of thousands of politically influential members of the government. During Trump’s first administration, there were people like righteous conservatives who led initiatives that tangibly advocated for free speech, religious freedom, pro-life values, and other principles that have a direct impact on a moral citizenry.

A note about third parties and refusing to vote

Voting for a non-viable third party, in protest against ‘voting for the lesser of two evils’, is simply voting for the lesser of the three evils and therefore still voting for evil. No virtuous ground is being gained. On the contrary, such a mood neglects its power to prevent the greatest evil. Ironically, such a vote increases the very evil she wanted to avoid. In the same way, a rejected vote also loses the power to prevent the greatest evil.

It’s not or you use your strength, but How. Voting is an example of this actions of committee (active participation, voting) vs. acts of negligence (inactive participation, no voting). This is the whole ‘no action is action’ scenario. Participation is inevitable. Inaction, while fully aware of the consequences (we suffer), can hardly deny blame for the results, which could mean a victory for an administration whose evil far exceeds Trump’s.

Clarification of Spurgeon’s ‘of two evils, choose neither’

The context of Charles Spurgeon’s “Of two evils, choose neither” is distorted. The great theologian’s sermon from 1875 was about choosing sin. If one were to choose neither evil in such a context, neither evil would occur. But these are elections that will take place despite our participation.

Voting does not determine whether elections take place. Voting determines the outcome of an election.

Conclusion

I would never ask anyone to vote against their conscience, but rather to reconsider how their conscience works. This is not a vote for a person, but for a cause to preserve whatever moral integrity we have left for generations to come, even if the channel to such preservation does not reflect our moral standards.

If evil is inevitable, why not do our part to ensure its control?

If evil is inevitable, why not prevent greater misery for the children of tomorrow?

Oh, that our piety would not be at the expense of future generations.