I have the great opportunity and burden of being a Pennsylvania voter. But I am no longer a reliably partisan one. So old friends now assign me monikers like, “baffling” and “Devil’s middleman” in their correspondence. Some ask for an explanation. Here it is.

Objections to my drift from the fold come in two kinds. Sometimes, they say that the choice is “binary” so choose the lesser evil, after all “our nominee stinks way less than theirs”. Others say, “our guy doesn’t stink at all; smells rather nice actually; God’s chosen, imperfect candidate with great policies (if a little rough) who is unfairly attacked for them by that wicked other side.”

The first tactic focuses on the ethical tradition allowing for bad acts to achieve good ends. This is rare and limited to dilemmas presenting no possible response to a situation other than two. In such a case the actor is blameless for choosing the lesser evil. But applying that principle here misses (willfully, perhaps) the possibility of a third meaningful option, and the long, impactful tradition that such, strategic rather than tactical voting has played in our political history.

So it bears constant repeating: There is no dual party constraint (moral, practical, or otherwise) unless one imposes it. Our Constitution protects what our Declaration recognizes: the human right to self-government for the purpose of protecting all other rights. 

Vote strategically, tactically, or other. Do not be bullied into an illusory, extra-constitutional, binary status quo, especially where millions of partisan livelihoods depend on your doing precisely that. And do not, under any circumstances, believe the quadrennial, apocalyptic predictions of imminent national collapse should your generally preferred side of that status quo fail to triumph this year. That is an addicting, self-perpetuating drug. Our founders gave us something much stronger than that. Anyone who claims independent or split-ticket voting will have no effect on our nation, or “just helps the other guy” suffers from a deficient historical education. Any good survey of U.S. history will help with that. See the origins of the Republican Party, for starters. 

Or simply ask yourself this: If a Senate candidate — say, Dave McCormick here in Pennsylvania this year — were to outpoll the top of his GOP ticket (as happened with Pat Toomey and Donald Trump in 2016,) regardless of the final outcomes, would that not make a powerful statement? One that GOP politicos would need to consider, moving forward, if they hoped to win again? Tactical versus strategic.

Argument two: “Our guy is still simpatico on concerns we share.” e.g., the legal status and treatment of the fetus – especially later in his or her gestation. The conscience is shocked by Kamala Harris and her abortion on demand, for all nine months, from sea to shining sea position, or at least ought to be.

Trump is not sufficiently better to my best reckoning. 

It is no longer 2016, with dueling judicial nominees front and center. Trump has now re-positioned himself as only ever so slightly rightward of Harris on the question of the rights of the nearly born. He really doesn’t, on balance, offer anything. And he is getting way too much credit from the pro-life lobby for it. 

In reality he has boldly proclaimed a radical state-sovereignty-only approach regarding the question of late abortions. Thus, the upshot today is that no fetus who lives within an $89 flight of New York, LA, Chicago, etc. is legally protected anywhere in America, throughout his or her entire 40-week term of gestation. This sad reality can no longer be credibly denied. 

Dismissing our past support, Trump has lately, repeatedly promised to veto any congressional attempt to set a national minimum standard of care that excludes elective, late-term abortion. Yes, praise God, we are now out from under Roe, which politically had its foot on our neck. But that enormously consequential development was only the first, small step in the journey to legally, protect at least some, and maybe one day more innocents. All of them would seem politically unlikely, but perhaps one day, “in God’s time,” things will be different.

Question: what would come next should Trump prevail in 2024? Answer: The lame duck would predictably lead Republicans to another, spectacular, 2018-like, congressional midterm defeat. Why would anyone who has followed the man – especially post-Dobbs (when he quickly became the dog who caught the abortion car) — predict that he would retain his support for the nearly born with his veto pen wielded against any codification of Roe’s totalitarian extremes? 

I can not see that happening. Rather, I imagine Trump would conveniently bow to the democratic “will of the people” and sign the monstrosity, while muttering, “Nice knowing ya, pro-lifers”. To rule out that likelihood under Trump’s current non-leadership, and record of faithlessness strikes me as willful character assessment blindness and political malpractice. 

So what would you do, friend, if you, like me, believed Trump to be a perilously thin straw at which to grasp? Cutting the dead weight loose now before it drags us down further, is my strategic plan for my vote. 

We pro-life Republicans have spent decades telling our culturally conservative, Democratic friends and family that the magnitude of abortion ought to negate for them whatever virtues they find in their pro-choice Democrats such as Cuomo, Kennedy, etc. Now, the question I put to my pro-life, pro-Trump Republican friends is this: does being just minimally less pro-choice than the Democrats negate all other, current, manifest Republican flaws? 

For me, the answer now must be “no.” Some flaws can disqualify despite other strengths. That cuts for all parties.

Next, it is now common to hear pro-life friends speak in near mystical terms of Trump having been “anointed by God” to save us, like various Biblical cads of old. Could be. But what if God has done no such thing? Where is the Biblical passage that would definitively instruct me one way or the other? Nowhere. 

It is pretty hard to know the mind of God about present-day politicians. I am very wary of anyone who thinks otherwise, especially when their theology nicely jibes with a lifetime of partisan preference. If God wants me to see The Donald as King David, I am sure He will find a way to so instruct me. He hasn’t yet.

Objection Two: “Trump as pro-life leader may be pretty thin gruel, but how about everything else he’s done?” 

Yes. How far back shall we go? Advocating killing jihadists’ children? That would be a war crime, and not pro-life. Calling opponents “vermin” and “enemies within”? The language of state-sponsored genocide. Not pro-life. Inflationary tariffs? See Ronald Reagan. Fecklessly working every possible side of the Covid street? No thanks. Three hours faithlessly sitting on his singular authority to defend our Constitution while watching TV, as cops and Capitol were brutalized by a mob – a mob he personally assembled – for no good earthly reason, other than his lawless, pathetic attempt to cling to power? Impossible to look past. 

And still he lies and misleads his faithful about it. Calling critics and past sexual conquests cruel names like, “horseface”? You don’t believe her about the claimed tryst, or why he surreptitiously coughed up $130K? I do. I must choose one of them to believe. So must you. Publicly enthusing, like some lascivious porn producer, about another man’s rumored (I guess?) penis size? Pretty weird. 

So much more that could be said, but it has all been said before –  a thousand times over. The man has been on our screens for forty years now; nightly for nine. If you do not share this measure of the man, a million more words could not change that.

But, I must add one more item, a thought experiment. 

Suppose God commands you to place the equity in your home on the roulette table. Red if Trump sexually assaulted some of his accusers. Black if he did not. The correct answer is known to the House. Where does your nest egg go? No doubt my bet instantly goes on red. I have little doubt how most would bet. The man has zero reputation for truth-telling. 

He seems to revel in successfully selling absurdities — kind of like Bill Clinton. All this means I am now asked, by my friends, to vote for someone whom I believe, in my heart of hearts, probably belongs on sex offender lists in Palm Beach and Bedminster. How did we get here? 

For me, it’s all too much to take on the responsibility for rewarding this noxious conduct with enormous power again. Can’t do it. Given the competing, horrible alternatives, I am voting strategically, long-term, this time. When one of these two nightmare candidates is declared the winner, I will get to work opposing whomever that is. In the meantime, Toomey in ‘24, whether he wants my vote or not. When all this mercifully ends I hope and pray that you and I can make common cause again. We will need to. Hope to see you around, friend.

John E. Coffey, Esq. writes from Montgomery County, Pennsylvania where he practiced law, taught school, and once sought the Republican nomination for its Congressional seat after having worked on Capitol Hill as a Legislative Assistant for Pro-Life Matters for U.S. Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ).