Against political Donatism

Does a vote for “the lesser of two evils” make one complicit in evil? Not necessarily.

First of all, the “lesser of two evils” language is a bit imprecise, and simply serves as a shorthand for choosing between two highly flawed options and making a judgment call about which one will do the least damage. Furthermore, I think we need more categories for association with sinners—which is the only category of candidates we have.

There is a scale of association that we need to consider in order to assess our actions in voting. Without this, many contemporary Christians will remain fuzzy on the ethics of voting.

There’s an example from Church history—the Donatist controversy—that can help us think through the ethics of voting.

The Donatists believed the sacraments were rendered invalid if the officiating priest was known to be involved in sin, most crucially the sin of denying Christ under persecution. Augustine rebuked them for their sloppy thinking about how associations with sinners corrupted Christians. They were a sort of “fundamentalists” (to speak anachronistically) in thinking that to maintain their purity they had to separate from sinners completely. Political Donatists today are adamant to avoid any association with candidates who are demonized by the commentariat, but this associational-purity obsession leads to poor political thinking.

Augustine argued that one cannot entirely separate from sinners in either the ecclesial or civic spheres. He explained that not every form of association with sinners corrupts Christians and brings them under judgment. However, three types of association do bring believers into such a state, Augustine believed, and we should consider if they apply to voting for the least bad among present political candidates.

First, one is corrupted in an association when one joins in the act of sinning. Second, one is corrupted in an association when one consents to another’s sin—such as expressing explicit approval of the sin, helping them commit the sin, or trying to shield them from legitimate penalties for their sinful actions. Third, one is complicit also when one is in an official position in relation to the sinner and fails to rebuke the sinner in committing a public sin.

How does this relate to our voting?

Augustine’s first category is not relevant. When you vote for someone, you are not directly acting with them to accomplish any particular act. There are lots of factors you are weighing. The candidate has a variety of positions, and it is often unclear what he or she will actually attempt or successfully accomplish. You are making a calculated judgment about the relative merits of the package of potential acts and consequences of a candidate’s administration. Thus, the mere act of voting does not join a political leader in sinning.

The second category is a bit more complicated. However, I think that this form of corruption is exactly what the rhetoric of “lesser evil” is trying to guard against. Voting for a candidate you know to have character flaws and policy positions with which you strongly disagree does not make you directly complicit in those flaws or those policies. However, it is important that your support does not start to numb you to those errors and lead you to defend them in defense of your vote.

The third category only applies to voters with a high profile or official capacity who publicly endorse a candidate. They might have some responsibility to, at times, rebuke the acts and policies of their candidate. An example would be the recent push by many pro-life conservatives to petition the RNC to reject Trump’s removal of pro-life commitments from his platform.

One of Augustine’s other teachings is relevant here: his discussion of the burdens of judgment in this world. Judges bear a great responsibility for making consequential decisions, and this is complicated by the fact that they will never have all the information. There is thus a great chance that they will make a mistake. So, should they just pack it up and go home, refusing to judge? No. Judge they must. And engage in civic life we must, which often means voting for one among very flawed candidates.

But what Augustine helps us grasp is the tragic nature of it all. Politics is messy and we could make some serious mistakes, but we must engage. He says the best judge is the one who recognizes that mistakes are part and parcel of the task. Thus, there is no “happy [judge].” I think we should probably come to grips with the fact that there is no “happy voter” in our present system. The rights we enjoy in our democratic system mean we also have civic duties, but those duties often involve decisions of such a tragic nature.

This doesn’t tell us exactly how we should vote, or that it is unwise or wrong to abstain from voting or to vote for a third party. But I do think this at least helps us move toward wisdom on what type of association is involved in voting for a candidate. Be an Augustinian realist as opposed to a political Donatist, even as you oppose the sin and sinful policies of the sinners for whom you vote. In a fallen world, politics is often a mess. That fact doesn’t mean believers are just to choose not to vote.