THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:
Despite the fact this post is coming in an election year, one may be quick to notice I have not put up who I want to win the election.
Before I explain why, let me first get into what brought this on:
In a recent episode of The Download on ChurchMilitant.com, a point was brought up about which commandments were playing the biggest role in the presidential election. Election 2012, for example, was dubbed a 6th Commandment election because of the then major issue of gay so-called "marriage". Election 2016 was called a 7th and 8th commandment-centered election because of all the socialist notions touted by one candidate and the brazen tactics of another.
While it wasn't the discussion's main topic, that had me thinking just how well any of the candidates stack up to the Commandments. Seeing as projection markets say it will come down to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, which one will I vote for?
The answer is…neither.
Between Clinton's near-obsession with abortion rights and Trump's multiple Bible gaffs, I don't see any point in voting this time.
In fact, what reasons exist to vote for either one? Let's look at some and why none of them make any sense:
"You should vote for Clinton because it's time for a female US president."
So you're saying her qualifications are based just on her gender? How is that any different than voting for someone because they're black?
"You should vote for Trump because he'll make America great again."
Since when is American greatness based on who our president is? Are you saying America was never great when we had a bad president?
"Trump will create jobs."
Jobs are created by entrepreneurs, not the government.
"Clinton has political experience."
Explain Benghazi to me then.
"Trump will only sell out to the rich."
How much is Hillary's net worth again?
"Hillary knows it's immoral to not care for the poor."
But apparently her husband didn't know it's immoral (and illegal) to lie to a grand jury.
Now the main one both sides use:
"You should vote for our candidate because (s)he is the lesser of two evils."
Allow me to point out a few things wrong with using that argument:
Besides the obvious fact you just indirectly admitted your candidate is evil, "lesser of two evils" only comes into play when all available choices are evil, there are no other choices to make, and you can't get away with not making a choice.
In the case of a presidential election, there is ALWAYS another choice to make and it's the one I'm going to do:
Not vote at all.
And don't hand me any of that "if you don't vote, you don't have a voice" bull. My 1st amendment rights are dependent on me being a citizen, not on me voting.
Besides, what if I vote for someone and they impose an immoral action on the people? Wouldn't that make me culpable, even if there was no way of foreseeing it? I would say it does.
Is it immoral to not vote? I don't think so. If you think it is, consider this: you vote every day on what you're going to buy. Is it immoral for you to not buy anything if you don't find something you believe is worth buying? Then why should it be immoral to not vote for someone you don't really believe?
And that's what it comes down to for me: I don't think either candidate believes in a power higher than themselves and neither believes that they will have to answer for more at their final judgment than an everyday citizen would.
Besides, there is only one party I'd vote for and that's the Constitution Party…too bad they don't have ballot access in my state.