Voting for the lesser of two evils?
For pro-lifers, a third-party vote would not be wasted, but unwise
Now that the Trump-Vance campaign has explicitly rejected any move toward federal restrictions on abortion— and has actually endorsed federal support for contraception and in vitro fertilization— can conscientious pro-lifers still support the GOP presidential ticket?
In our podcast last week, Leila and I discussed that question, prompted by a much-debated analysis by philosopher Edward Feser. While encouraging readers to listen to the podcast (and read Feser’s essay), and engage with the comments, I will hazard a few summary observations:
1. The Trump-Vance move away from the pro-life position is terribly disappointing, morally obtuse, and politically stupid. It should not pass without strong protest.
2. However the stakes in this election are so high, and the Harris-Walz commitment to the culture of death is so extreme, that pro-lifers could and probably should vote for the flawed GOP ticket simply because the alternative is so frightening.
3. Nevertheless in some states where the outcome of the election is already predictable, pro-lifers may cast a ballot for a third-party candidate, rather than choose between candidates who favor legal abortion.
In an online discussion that followed our podcast, I unfortunately referred to the third-party alternative as a “protest vote.” I regret using that term. Peter Sonski, the presidential candidate of the American Solidarity Party, rightly called me on it:
With respect Mr. Lawler, may I infer that support for a platform (@AmSolidarity) based heavily on Catholic social teaching is to be defined as a “protest vote”?
This is not a new debate— although the question is more hotly contested this year, because the stakes are so high. In the past I have strongly supported third-party efforts, especially when Republican politicians failed to deliver on their promises. I have been a third-party candidate myself, running for the US Senate in 2000 against the late Ted Kennedy. When the two major parties present unacceptable candidates and/or unacceptable platforms, a third-party challenge, however quixotic, may be the only option for someone unwilling to compromise important principles.
Because a third-party campaign faces enormous odds (ask Robert Kennedy, Jr.), many pragmatists argue against casting a “wasted vote.” But you only waste your vote if you cast your ballot for someone you don’t want to win (or if you don’t cast a ballot at all).
Consider: What are the plausible reasons for voting for Candidate X?
1. You want Candidate X to win. The simplest and most obvious reason.
2. You don’t particularly care for X, but you want to make sure that his main rival, Candidate Y, will lose. Still a simple case— and a compelling one this year.
3. You dislike both leading candidates, and want to register your dislike. This is a protest vote: a depressing option, but under some circumstances a reasonable one.
4. You want to create a new party or political coalition— presumably because you see the current choices as unacceptable— and you are willing to sacrifice the likelihood of a partial victory this year (a win by the less-unacceptable candidate) in order to build for future success.
The 4th option is the most challenging, obviously, and the most difficult to defend in arguments with diehard political junkies, who see no possibilities beyond the existing two-party setup. But where is it written that Democrats and Republicans must offer the only electable candidates? If third-party campaigns were never attempted, the Republican Party would not exist today. If a new coalition could not emerge to supersede a major party, the Federalists would still be on the ballot.
This year the third-party option— the Sonski option— may be attractive to pro-lifers disgusted by the Trump-Vance betrayal. This is particularly true for pro-lifers who live in deep-blue states, or deep-red states, and can be confident that their vote will not affect the outcome in the Electoral College. But for anyone voting in a contested state, the costs of choosing option 3 or 4 could be dangerously high.
However disappointing the rhetorical waffling of the Trump-Vance campaign has been, if GOP ticket is successful, the White House will not be engaged in the rabid promotion of abortion, nor in the persecution of pro-lifers. A Trump administration would not make unrestricted legal abortion its top priority, as the Harris campaign has promised to do. The gap between the two campaigns— one morally flawed, the other thoroughly repugnant— is too great to justify a mere protest vote.
One further thought: The Trump-Vance campaign has justified its policy shift by saying that the abortion issue should be decided by the states. Whether or not that argument is persuasive, the fact remains that the states will furnish the main political battlegrounds for the key legislative fights in the next few years. Pro-lifers dismayed by the Trump-Vance posture might take the candidates at their word, plan to vote for the GOP ticket, but focus their main energies on statewide battles. If you are unhappy that Trump and Vance will not lead the charge for the pro-life cause, work for the candidates who will.
In truth, we usually do not vote FOR a candidate, we vote AGAINST a candidate by casting a ballot for the one we consider less bad. Yes, I know that smacks of casuistry, but intentions matter.
In Oregon, Harris is such a lock that the Trump Campaign didn't even bother to submit a writeup to the Voter's Pamphlet.
I'll be voting for Pete Sonski- mainly for #4, but partially for #3 since clearly our voting system is too corrupt for a fair fight.