David Kupelian posed the question in WND Tuesday that is apparently on the minds of many: Is it moral for the Ted Cruz campaign to woo Arizona delegates away from Donald Trump should he fail to win the Republican nomination on the first ballot?
By the early morning hours, the reaction was strong. Overwhelmingly, the responses indicated that this effort was immoral.
Think about that now – immoral.
Let me attempt to make the case that it is not.
We live in a country of representative government. It doesn’t always work well, but it’s probably the best system of governance one can hope for in a fallen world.
In a representative government, the people do not make policy decisions directly. Instead, they vote for representatives who do.
With that in mind, let me pose the question in slightly revised form: Suppose a member of Congress is elected in your district by the express will of the majority. Let’s also assume you believe that member is taking a wrong position on a particular issue. Would it be immoral for you to try to persuade him/her to vote differently?
It seems to me that is analogous to what the Cruz campaign is doing with Arizona delegates pledged to Trump. By the way, they are pledged to Trump only on the first ballot! If they are legally and morally pledged to Trump on the first ballot, please explain to me why it would be immoral to persuade them to vote for someone else on the second? It doesn’t even make any sense to me.
I would suggest there is plenty of immorality built into our politics. It’s true that a small minority within the Republican establishment is trying to force its will upon the vast majority of Republican voters. The same thing is happening within the Democratic Party establishment.
But this is not an example of that.
This is an example of people and campaigns working within the established rules to make their case for a specific candidate.
The Cruz campaign is not buying votes. That would be immoral.
The Cruz campaign is not threatening delegates to change their votes. That would be immoral.
The Cruz campaign is not coercing delegates to change their votes. That would be immoral.
Votes are bought every day in Washington. Where is the moral indignation over that?
Votes are changed every day in Washington as a result of threats. Where is the moral indignation over that?
Votes are changed every day in Washington through coercion. Where is the moral indignation over that?
I understand the passion people are experiencing right now as they see a chance to overthrow a corrupt party establishment this election year. They are inclined to be suspicious, and rightfully so. They are inclined to see their favored candidate as the only solution or the best solution. That’s understandable. They are inclined to see conspiracies afoot to thwart their candidate’s effort, with good reason.
But no one candidate has a monopoly on morality.
Morality is determined by God, not man.
If morality is determined by man, then every man does what is right in his own eyes. Those who read the Bible are familiar with the problems associated with every man doing what’s right in his own eyes.
By the way, the Ted Cruz campaign is hardly alone in wooing delegates to change their votes on a potential second ballot at the Republican convention. The Republican establishment is hard at work doing the same thing. They are trying to persuade Trump delegates and Cruz delegates to support a candidate of their liking – probably Paul Ryan.
Is it immoral?
No, it’s politics.
And if you want to win, you better play by the rules.