Pragmatism vs. principle: what to do with Mitt

October 15, 2012Stephen Stone, Renew America President

Most informed, decent Americans realize that we as a nation are faced this election with a choice that is entirely unthinkable on the one hand (Barack Obama), and profoundly unacceptable on the other (Mitt Romney), for President of the United States.

We can all agree — as moral conservatives — about the first choice. It's the second that divides us.

Some of us have resigned ourselves to the now-cliché "lesser of two evils" rationalization and are planning to support Romney for purely pragmatic reasons: "Obama's got to go, and Mitt is our only realistic hope of stopping the radical communist." Some of us instead are third-party supporters who are aligned with someone like Ron Paul (as a write-in), Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party, or Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party, in the hope of influencing public policy (if not the outcome of the election itself). And some of us are platform-minded Republicans who support the unifying published principles of the GOP, but can't tolerate the thought of voting for Mitt Romney — who is arguably the most liberal-socialistic (not to mention opportunistic) Republican nominee ever, despite his feigned conservatism, and who, by the way, has distanced himself from the party platform.

A lot has been said about the two "evils" these "twin-party" choices pose for moral conservatives. Obama is obviously disqualified for his Marxist/Islamist/destroy-America agenda, likely to play out to a catastrophic conclusion if he's re-elected — that is, if God doesn't intervene in our hour of extreme need and spare our nation from Obama's evil designs. Read More: