Rick wrote:
1) the candidate has to have the political views I share.
2) the candidate has to be trustworthy in my view.
3) the candidate has to have a legitimate chance to win.
None of the candidates fit my criteria. That's my dilemma.
Funny, Rick, but GOD never let such things keep HIM from voting, as He selects EVERY winning candidate, and He does so, EVERY time!
"He removes kings and establishes kings;" (Dan 2:21)
"For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God." (Rom 13:1)
But here's the thing: WE must do our best to make decisions amongst imperfect choices. We must choose a horse to ride amongst the choices God allows us. It's a bit like choosing a cable tv package - we don't like most of the programs, have no use for them, even despise many of them, but we still manage to choose the best between the choices we are given, so as to get some programs we so desire. We do this about many, many things in our lives - choosing between imperfect options. And so why should we not do so by choosing between our political options?
If we always operated the entirety of our lives upon the idea that we wouldn't choose between given options, until we had near-perfect choices, then we'd never accomplish ANYTHING. Men are ALL imperfect - you, me - ALL of us. So does someone have to be so close to our ideals before we can make a choice? WHY? And isn't that a bit hypocritical? Aren't others often accepting of us, choosing us for assignments/tasks/jobs, even though we painfully know that we each have considerable flaws, and that we've failed spectacularly in our own pasts? Did any of us wait until they met the female ideal of their dreams before marrying our wives (OK, not fair, as I did
- just in case my beloved reads this thread, eh?). But seriously, we constantly must choose betwixt the imperfect, do we not?
And if two candidates are a wash or there are no real differences between them on MOST issues, then I think we must ask ourselves are there still not perhaps issues in which their
other differences WILL (at least potentially, as far a we can humanly determine) make a BIG difference, or might one such difference of their intentions likely to be
much more harmful to us? To ignore such things is to be naive! What kind of judges are each likely to nominate, etc. And there ARE issues that make these two men
vastly different, and in which one is clearly much more dangerous, at least on some critical issues. Thing is, we should impact where we can and as we can - or at least try to. That is OUR responsibility. The outcome is God's. And, obviously, God often reflects the collective/majority values of society, back to us in the leaders He gives us. But I can only wonder if perhaps He also reflects back the value of our apathy and unwillingness to be responsible - at least as we
CAN be responsible?
Some appear to sit on a moral high horse, as if theirs is a holy vote to be bestowed upon some grand SPIRITUAL leader, as if they are tasked with choosing a replacement disciple for Judas. We're electing a political leader, but some are so unrealistic as to continue waiting upon the perfect candidate, one straight from "Central Casting." And THAT fellow doesn't exist - and he/she NEVER did!
