By Jeff Gunnarson
Vote only for pro-life candidates
I think it’s time we label voters like me and many other “social conservatives.” I would like to substitute the word virtue as the term used to describe a certain political type, a social conservative (socon). In my case, and my circle of friends, it is a much more accurate descriptor. We are virtue voters.
A man/woman of virtue believes in political principles that protect or support the dignity of the human person. A truly virtuous person has a profound belief in God and allows his conscience to reflect that belief. They are pro-life, pro-traditional family (one man, one woman, and usually with kids), and have a nurturing attitude toward the sick and dying, that is to say, in the political arena they are firmly against euthanasia.
Virtuous candidates can be smart, shrewd, and perhaps a little bit conniving. There is nothing wrong with being a top competitor. After all, it is a race and winning requires the right resume, tactics, and strategy. We are convinced those are compatible with the truth.
A successful candidate must know and take ownership of the party policy/platform. He, or she, may decide to improve upon it and/or express a desire to downplay one aspect or another. The party members must be convinced that he can win the day on all issues, not just social conservative ones.
A virtuous candidate has the same, and more often than not, the higher chance of winning because the social conservative base is the largest element of the party. We are united in the cause of life, charity, and freedom.
We are true conservatives. We believe in conservatism in that the political process should reflect what is right and just — that is to say, a party, and eventually, government ought to implement policies and laws that will bring about a democracy in which man’s dignity is the centre and all actions should build him up, not knock him down. This is what a virtuous candidate brings to the party and when done right, it can attract a majority of the full spectrum of the party members.
We must not, however, fall for a pro-abortion candidate (any candidate who believes a woman has a right to abortion) who attempts to curry favour with the social conservative/virtue voters by promising some small token of a social conservative nature. It may be appreciated that these candidates offer such a pearl but beware. Such candidates will close her hands before you can grasp that pearl. They will find ways to water-down or ignore the promise claiming it is not the right time or some other pathetic excuse for breaking said promise
Campaign Life Coalition has asked pro-life candidates to endorse each other and no other candidate. It would appear this may be wishful thinking as the candidates (or their campaign teams) jockey for position, hedging their bets so to speak, in order to be considered an asset in a future government by the would-be leader. We must be on our toes when this happens and encourage our preferred candidate to stick to their guns and not give their pearls (the pro-life voters) to the swine.
It is important for social conservative voters to realize the importance of voting for virtuous candidates only. A profound message is sent to the party every time one of us includes a “lesser evil” or pro-abort candidate on the ballot. What is says to a future candidate and the party establishment, is that I need only give them a few crumbs and I can vote against my conscience because we are willing to vote for a winner at any cost. But what are we winning when we vote for candidates committed to the status quo on abortion?
Vote virtue. Vote pro-life.
Jeff Gunnarson is national president of Campaign Life Coalition.