His main reason? That the political process and the political candidates are so tainted with immorality (e.g., the at least de facto approval of abortion and homosexuality) that to vote for just about anyone is to participate in evil.
Before disagreeing with him, I will express what’s right in Proph’s position. We must acknowledge that American society is fundamentally disordered, and that much evil and foolishness has enthusiastic institutional support, even from many self-styled conservatives. We do not have before us a truly (or even adequately) conservative candidate or party having any chance of victory, and to think otherwise it to be seriously deluded. From the standpoint of proper traditionalist conservatism, we have only bad candidates.
So all contemporary institutions are tainted with the evil of leftism. And so are almost all important public people. Therefore anything one does in the public sphere involves a certain amount of what could be called “participation in evil.”And therefore the avoiding of participation in evil is not a valid means of choosing a course of action. The Proph non-voting theorem is invalid.
Shall I betray my nation [by not voting for Romney] because the GOP cannot produce a candidate sufficiently endowed with a desire to defend the Constitution? It would be like letting my mother get beaten to death on the street by a gang of thugs, and not coming to her rescue because she is a drunk.
Now, you might say that she has vowed not to be a drunk before and betrayed that promise before.
You might say that her promise to stop drinking is merely to get you to come to her aid, and perhaps the thugs beating her are not so bad. After all, the press is all on the side of the thugs and against your mother.
The old lady has a lot of toughness. She might live. A few more boots in her face, maybe it will break her nose and damage her bridgework. And who cares if Catholics have to pay for contraceptives, and Christians have to pay for abortifacient drugs? And if the press corp[s], hooting and whooping, draw near to urinate in the old lady’s eyes and nose and open wounds, that is not likely to kill her.
There is a lot of ruin in a nation, after all.
On the other hand, she is your mother, and a vote to save her, even if her promise to go to financial rehab is false, is better than the vote for the thugs, who claim she is not drinking heavily enough, and who want to see her humiliated and see her power broken and see her bankrupted and ultimately see her dead.
I resonate with these sentiments. Our nation, for all its great faults and sins, is still our nation. Obama and his Democratic Party (with, it must be admitted, the at least passive acquiescence of most Republicans) are assaulting our nation and trying to destroy it. We are not witnessing an assault on a stranger, but rather on someone whom we love, someone who has nurtured us and given us life.
And therefore one should not support, even passively, the thugs. Obama is actively working to destroy America, whereas Romney is not actively working for destruction. Romney seems to be a fundamentally decent and highly competent man who at worst accepts the destruction because it is popular with many voters. It appears that, if elected, he could often be cajoled or forced to do the right thing. Not so Obama.
Also, a protest non-vote is symbolic, but a vote is concrete. And although one vote does not make a difference, many one votes do.
Is Romney bad in many ways? Yes. To see some of his most egregious faults, see the first Orthosphere post linked above. But when participating in the larger life of our nation, it is virtually impossible to support a virtuous man, organization, or course of action.
And neutrality is impossible. The Democrats (with occasional exceptions noted) are eagerly working for the destruction of our nation. The Republicans (with exceptions noted) are not eager for the destruction, and when in power, they see to it that the destruction is slowed down. At this point in the life of our nation, those are the only two choices.
I acknowledge that one vote does not make any difference. But if it did make a difference, shouldn’t an Orthospherically-inclined reader vote for Romney?
A vote for Romney means supporting the possibility of the repeal of the unprecedented tyranny of Obamacare socialism. It means buying time and delaying the destruction of our nation, giving more time for the conservative/traditionalist resistance to be organized. That’s why, next Tuesday, I’ll hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.
I’m not taking on the question of whether mass voting is a good way do decide important questions. In general, it is better for important decisions to be made by wise men than by a survey of the masses. I’m just speaking here of what one ought to do now, given the conditions that exist.