I have been pondering with some concern Edward Feser’s recent post “Trump has put social conservatives in a dilemma”. Feser is a Catholic philosopher whose analyses on matters from the moral to the metaphysical should not be ignored nor taken lightly, and as such it gave me some pause when considering how to vote in the wake of Trump’s softening on pro-life issues. I am not convinced that the word “betrayal” is appropriate to describe this softening, but certainly his attempts to triangulate a “moderate” stance on abortion (and related matters, like IVF) has been demoralizing.
Nevertheless, I believe we who are pro-life should vote for Trump. Let me explain.
Feser reviews the relevant factors and Church teachings, and in the end he allows that in swing states, since Trump is still the least bad option and a Kamala victory would be far worse for the unborn, Catholics may in good conscience—though not without vocal protest—cast their vote for him. However, he argues that in states, like California, where Trump has no chance of winning, that the most moral option is a protest vote. In this way, Trump can still win, but his victory will not be without some lost ground. The Republican Party will therefore learn that the social conservative vote cannot be taken for granted, and betrayal of our causes is not without political risk.
He does not, if I recall correctly, propose a course of action for those voters in states that Trump will surely win, like Texas. Presumably, if too many social conservatives cast a protest vote, there is at least in theory a chance that he could thereby lose in those states. But this seems unlikely, so perhaps the recommended course would still be a protest vote.
I would not presume to impugn Feser’s argumentation, nor would I fault him for coming to this conclusion, but upon reflection I do not think that I can agree with him either. Given that it is morally permissible to vote for the least bad of two candidates as long as we do not assent to the morally impermissible positions that person holds, then I think there are several prudential considerations that lead me, at any rate, to conclude that we should continue to support and vote for Trump regardless of whether our vote “counts” or not in our particular state. Namely: (1) the invisibility of Trump’s “moderate” stance, (2) Trump’s enemies cannot be allowed to destroy him, (3) Trump is a transitional figure, and what comes next is more important.
The invisibility of Trump’s “moderate” stance
Many doubted Trump’s true commitment to the pro-life cause during his first election bid. They saw it as mere political manuevering to win the religious vote. And then against all odds, Trump appointed three conservative justices to the Supreme Court and got Roe v. Wade overturned. He thereby established unimpeachable pro-life bona fides.
And yet, as other’s have pointed out, the pro-life movement seems to have been caught off-guard, having focused for so long on the fight at the federal level, they do not seem to have been prepared for the 50 smaller fights in each state. So, in the wake of Dobbs the politics have been, at the very least, uncertain in terms of whether pressing the pro-life issue in the several States will help or harm the Republican Party and it’s chances of gaining and maintaining power. Perhaps because of this, or perhaps because this situation gives him an excuse to retreat to a position closer to his true stance on abortion, Trump has been attempting to strike a “moderate” position, suggesting that states should enact laws that allow exceptions and have generous “grace” periods after conception during which abortion is still allowed. He has spoken—apparently approvingly—of states enacting surprisingly liberal laws, and even suggested he might vote for a measure in Florida to undo the six-week abortion ban, though he walked that back.
Whatever the reason for Trump’s errors, they are errors. Both because they are morally repugnant and a failure to remain loyal to the pro-life voters who have supported him, and because it will likely not gain him any points politically. Kamala Harris said: “Donald Trump just made his position on abortion very clear: He will vote to uphold an abortion ban so extreme it applies before many women even know they are pregnant.”—and she repeated that assertion in the recent debate. The only thing this new pose might do politically is lose Trump votes, because the Democrats have a powerful interest in continuing to pin the most extreme abortion position to Trump despite how he shifts his views. And of course, it is the Democrat narrative that will be amplified.
Therefore, in a way, Trump’s recent errors on pro-life issues may well be largely invisible, at least for the critical swing voters who must be persuaded: in terms of how a Trump victory will be perceived, what it will mean to the country, I think it will be a victory for abortion restriction, and for pro-life. The average voter will still suppose that voting for Trump is a vote for pro-life. Therefore, we should vote for him in order to strengthen the pro-life mandate, both on the Federal level and on the state level, despite Trump’s personal failures in this area.
Of course, Trump may, when in office, attempt to govern with this “moderate” stance. He may not support a national abortion ban, for instance. However, as he pointed out the debate, it is unlikely that law would ever make his desk. There are a great many Democrats and lukewarm Republicans standing in the way of such a law. Nor are the American People, to our great shame, ready to accept it. But perhaps another term for the man who overturned Roe will move us in that direction.
At worst, he will, again, govern in a way that does less harm to the cause than a Harris administration.
Trump’s Enemies must not win
The Democrats have spent nearly a decade slandering and attempting to destroy Trump and all those who support him—through hoaxes and psyops and corrupt lawfare. He was, as we all know, nearly assassinated. While the shooter’s motives remain curiously and conveniently ambiguous to this day, it is not unlikely that the Trump-is-Hitler rhetoric played a part in that villain’s desire to put a bullet in the man. At any rate, they swiftly moved on and ensured that the whole event meant nothing and amounted to nothing. For Trump’s enemies, the man and everything he stands for must be finally annihilated.
Pro-life is one thing for which Trump, in the minds of his enemies, now stands. He was a champion for pro-life late in the day, and perhaps was motivated by political reasons, and has lately wavered, but he was and in their minds still is a standard bearer for the cause. They would have—and do—despise any pro-life politician, but if they can lash the pro-life cause to Trump and then sink Trump in the sea, they will do it.
A loss now would be a repudiation of Trump and all his causes, and a vindication of his enemies and all their works and all their empty promises. For this reason, we must do all that we can to ensure that Trump wins, so that his victory in overturning Roe v Wade is vindicated and does not disappear in the potter’s ground.
What comes after Trump is more important
If Trump’s enemies succeed in destroying him and he is repudiated and all the good he accomplished is wiped out in a damnatio memoriae, then the trajectory he set the Republican Party—and the culture—on will be thrown off course. Many in the Republican Party are still hoping for this—and all of the Democrats are fighting tooth and claw for it. They want to return to that turn-of-the-century status quo, when conservatism conserved nothing, and Republicans were happy to announce nice-sounding platitudes while remaining entirely ineffectual in any of the ways that truly matter.
Trump is—beyond whatever merits he may have as a statesman and an executive—above all a cultural catalyst. He has awoken and energized and emboldened conservative culture in a way that the neo-con liberals like McCain or Romney neither wanted nor of which they were capable. Even true conservatives like DeSantis and Cruz, though worthy lieutenants, are in this moment unable to rise to the level of supreme commander in the fight. Trump is effective, and it is his effectiveness in shifting the culture that makes him such a threat to the status quo. Yes he is also at times brutish, but in a degenerate age, perhaps a little brutishness is needed to upset the disordered order—not to destroy it or completely overturn it, but to create a space to restore and reorder it.
Without an effective culture we will never win the culture war, and we will never be able to persuade the American People that what has been lost over the last century is worth restoring. We need the people to want to fight for that restoration.
Trump, because of his flaws, is not without his moral hazards. Trump is not himself the paradigm of the leader we need to win the culture war. He is not the virtuous philosopher-king for whom we long. He is a transitional figure. Like Moses, he may be fit to lead us out of Egypt and through the trial of the desert, but he cannot go with us into the Promised Land. Nevertheless, if we do not vote for him, and if he loses, then, I believe, the fire he has breathed into the cultural fight will go cold, and the old order will be reestablished more entrenched than ever. And the hopes of a true conservative revival in the wake of Trump’s cultural shakeup will be dashed.
So, let us continue to voice our objections when Trump stumbles on the path. Let us continue to encourage him to lead us where he promised he would.
And let us vote for the man, for the causes he has championed, and for the hope of what comes after him.