I have never described Trump as “evil,” nor have I thought of him that way, even during the primaries when I did not support him at all because I thought he was a loose cannon who was unpredictable and might be untrustworthy (also a blowhard and a braggart, of course). I wouldn’t vote for someone I considered “evil” unless in some hideous dystopic scenario that person was running against someone even more evil. But as I said, I never thought Trump was evil.

And as I’ve written at great length since Trump has been president, I approve of most of the things he’s done as president, and although I still find him to be a blowhard and a braggart, these tendencies are very much overshadowed by his accomplishments.

But in terms of the principle involved in revealing how a person votes – I don’t owe it to anyone to say how I voted or how I will vote nor does anyone else. However, I believe most of my friends think they know; I don’t hide my politics from people in my private life. And most of the people on this blog almost certainly think they know. However, in contrast to this, Goldberg volunteered the information as to who he planned to vote for, and attempted to explain why. I think that in the year 2020 with the choices we are facing now – even more dire and urgent than in 2016, which was dire and urgent enough, and with a great deal more of a political track record for what Trump does and will do as president – no one should stand on the sort of niceties that Goldberg is describing.

Obviously, you have a right to vote however you wish. But I think both you and Goldberg are making a very poor choice and one that is 100% unjustified by the facts.

I also think that in his public life as a politician (that’s most of his adult life), Biden has been deeply flawed in character in ways that are at least as bad and I think actually worse than Trump. Nor do I think that Biden is so senile that those things don’t remain as part of his character and performance. However, what’s far worse than that are the far left positions he now embraces and the far leftists who will actually be the powers behind his throne. The entire picture is vile. So this description/hypothetical you offered of the supposed dilemma is very far off the mark:

If the choice is to vote for a candidate who nominally represents your political views but who you think is intrinsically evil, and another candidate who represents political views you see as evil but who is now nothing but a benign and hollow shell, then it becomes no choice – none of the above.

But Trump is not intrinsically evil or evil at all. Nor is Goldberg saying that he’s intrinsically evil, unless your definition of “evil” is “flawed,” in which case all politicians would be evil. And Biden – or what’s left of him – is not benign, nor is he completely hollow although he is significantly hollow. What’s left of him is awful, as he always was. And those behind him, who will wield the real power, are not the least bit benign. They are the opposite of benign.

Certainly, it is your right to decide how to use (or not) your vote. I may not agree, but I do defend that right. Goldberg’s too, of course. Just keep in mind: “As to Goldberg, I’m exactly in his position in hoping that Trump wins, but he won’t do it with my vote,” “You play both sides of the fence [Chuck]. There’s a word for that.”

A year ago when I left this forum after more than four years of regular comments, I said that Donald Trump had finally convinced me no matter the conservative policies he professed, the judges he appointed, and the actual accomplishments of his administration, I could no longer back him. I gave the reasons then and won’t rehash them. You answered and vehemently disputed everything.

What I will point out to your readers is that all during the lead up to Trump’s election in 2016, you were extremely critical of him. In fact you delved into his sordid personal and business past almost with a vengeance. But when it came time to vote in November 2016, after all this trashing of his character, but after he had become the Republican nominee, you bugged out! You left it up to your readers and contributors to decide.

You never personally admitted how you voted.
Maybe you left the space blank?
Maybe you voted for Hillary?
Maybe you voted for the Libertarian?
Maybe you didn’t vote at all?

We’ll never know, and neither will your many liberal friends and relatives. You play both sides of the fence Neo. There’s a word for that.

As to Goldberg, I’m exactly in his position in hoping that Trump wins, but he won’t do it with my vote.

Re: “Ultimately, my take is: 1) that we are voting for a president, not a rabbi, priest or saint….”

Yes, I find that a lot of people seem unable to appreciate what voting is.

Voting just is a means by which a citizen can indirectly decrease the likelihood of bad changes happening to his country, and increase the likelihood of good changes. But these likelihoods are relative to one another. Consequently, voting is nearly always a calculated exercise of choosing the lesser evil.

In voting, the voter indirectly affects the future in several ways:
1. His vote increases the likelihood of the candidate he votes for being elected, but it doesn’t deterministically ensure it;
2. If elected, the candidate will become an officeholder who may choose to exercise the power of that office in the way the voter expects, but that isn’t certain;
3. If elected, the candidate may be able to achieve the policy gains the voter hopes for, but that isn’t certain;
4. By voting for that candidate, the voter also thereby indirectly empowers the party the candidate is associated with, his advisors and political allies, his various hired staff, his campaign donors, and any nominees/appointees the officeholder may nominate, appoint, or confirm: A whole loosely-connected entourage of other persons.

Those four items describe a whole package; you get all of it when you vote for a candidate. It is that package that you’re voting for. It is that package that you’re comparing against the competition, deciding which package is likely to produce lesser evils.

That’s what voting is; here are some things voting isn’t:
(a.) It isn’t a stamp of approval on all the candidate’s personal traits.
(b.) It doesn’t establish a personal connection or loyalty-tie between you and the candidate;
(c.) It doesn’t make you a member of a club or tribe for whom the candidate is established as the exemplary member.

If Goldberg really got that he wouldn’t worry about the fact that he was voting for Trump in preference to the current Prog/SJW Machine. He’d realize that, in doing so, he would merely be doing what voters always do: Altering ever-so-slightly the probabilities of good vs. bad things happening to the country. He’d be putting his tiny shoulder up to one end of the country, helping the rest of us to shove it infintessimally away from the dark and towards the light.

By refusing to vote for Trump, he refuses to put his shoulder to the load. By saying that, well, at least he isn’t voting for the Democrat, he’s offering to put his pinky there, instead. (Gee, thanks, pal.)

This attitude has almost become a Zeitgeist which has mesmerized the land and to which people in the public eye (sports figures, CEOs, politicians, etc.) have succumbed, and one can’t rationally argue with someone who has reached their point of view irrationally.

You are welcome.

I found Grudem’s response to be a devastating takedown of the “I like what Trump has done, but I won’t vote for him anyway” philosophy that Bernard Goldberg purports to agree with. Grudem’s letter not only deals with policy matters, but also character issues. Admitting to a character red line that shouldn’t be crossed by a president, he argues that Trump has not crossed it.

Ultimately, my take is: 1) that we are voting for a president, not a rabbi, priest or saint; 2) that we have a record of both action and behavior in which the evidence of action overwhelmingly outweighs criticism of behavior; and 3) that we are voting against the ultimate dissolution of the United States by the progressive politics of the left.

Paraphrasing Donald Rumsfeld, you go to war with the candidate you have not the candidate you want.

This is precisely the point made by Wayne Grudem in his letter I referenced above:

At the beginning of your email, you write, “This email does not concern policy.” The rest of the email concerns what you see as President Trump’s character flaws.

But that means that your email fails to address the entire reason for my support of Trump.

https://townhall.com/columnists/waynegrudem/2020/08/08/letter-to-an-antitrump-christian-friend-n2573909