Liberals don’t have the same moral hang-ups. First, because they live in the here and now and are convinced there is no ultimate judge. Second, because they have seen the positive effects of having their side in power, even if part of “their side” is not totally on board. The fact is that many Democrats are to the right of Pelosi and Daschle yet they are the Democrats’ congressional leaders. They set the agenda.
You have an opportunity to implement your ideals once you get elected to office. If you lose, your opponent gets to implement his.
If you decide you are not going to run for office personally, the most logical way of deciding whom to support is to determine whose ideas are most like yours. However, if the choice involves more that two people, it is wise to determine who will do the most damage to your ideals and vote in such a way as to prevent his election. To do otherwise is to do violence to your ideals.
In their drive for ideological purity, some on the Right are quick to demonize those who do not toe the line. One of the facets of Reagan’s character that I remember is that he did not try to demonize anyone. He felt that government was often the problem, not the solution, but his comments were made with a general feeling of goodwill. I do not remember him either denouncing nor cheerleading homosexuals, pro-choice advocates and others who are not firm adherents of the Christian or Ideological Right; and he must have known more than his share, having spent most of his adult life in Hollywood.
We are all sinners. Some of us lie, cheat, commit adultery, engage in aberrant sexual behavior or commit a host of sins that are not crimes. As Christians, we do not want to justify those who commit sin. Yet, I would not like to see a requirement of moral perfection before we are allowed to serve the people in government office. Political leaders in a non-theocratic state are not primarily moral leaders. They are not responsible for the state of your soul, but for the welfare of your community, state and nation. And to govern in a free society, they have to have the support of a large portion of the people. It is easier to get that support if you are inclusive rather than exclusive.
We’re not going to win elections, or advance our agenda if we tell those with whom we have disagreements that we don’t want their vote. The intelligent and moral position for those who operate in the political arena is to try to get those who are persuadable to see things their way. I say “moral” because if we are concerned about the spiritual effects of political decisions, the last thing we want to do is to help evildoers to attain power. Human being are prone to sin and it is moral to avoid electing leaders who will lead them to sin. If the choice is between two evils, we must choose the lesser. The lesser of two evils is still evil, but it is lesser.
Some of the third party advocates believe that if we drive out the RINOS and allow liberals to be elected, the people will realize their mistake and throw the rascals out. There is little evidence to support this theory. Hitler was not turned out of office by the German people. In the USSR, when Stalin died the people wept despite his having murdered tens of millions of them. Bill Clinton, for all his faults, could probably have been elected to a third term. The current South African government is popular despite the falling living standards of the average black African there. “I’ll go vote for the third party to show the rascally Republicans that they can’t take me for granted” is a self defeating Walter Mitty pipe dream. You want to know how to drive the Republicans to the Left? Convince them that the only way they’ll win the next election is to move there because the Christian or Libertarian Right is going to sit out the next election.