It’s the final stretch. I would advise readers to take a giant lump of salt with the stories and polls that are flying around. As in wartime, it’s hard to tell what’s what in the dense fog. Like Powerline’s Steve Hayward, you might apply to politics screenwriter William Goldman’s assessment of the ability of people in Hollywood to predict what would succeed: “Nobody knows anything.”

Taking this attitude is important because the goal is to do what we need to do. I have talked to too many people on the right who take the attitude that, though they want Trump and the Republicans to win, either a) their state is solidly red, so they really don’t need to vote, or b) their state is solidly blue, so it’s simply pointless to vote. Neither of these approaches is correct. The reality is that you really don’t know what’s going to happen in an election that is close.

The only thing certain is that your failure to vote hurts your side and helps the other.

But there is the reality that some people still aren’t sure what their side is. Some of them are even conservatives. I know some on the right who tell me their consciences won’t let them vote for anybody. Others aren’t sure what their consciences are saying. They’re looking to do the right thing but don’t find it clear. I think in both cases there is the conviction or the worry that Trump is not truly on the same page with them on a number of issues, particularly with regard to how to handle abortion in America. While Kamala Harris and her surrogates have been telling low-information voters that Trump will enact a nationwide abortion ban, those on the conservative side know that he won’t do that. And they are worried that he is bending too far on this topic already. Thus, they are thinking about not voting for anyone.

While this kind of a position is understandable, it is mistaken. Many conservative Christians take seriously that their true citizenship is in heaven, and that their main obligation is to God. There is nothing wrong with that. But what does that citizenship entail?

Well, given that the earth is the Lord’s, as well, it can’t mean writing off this world as simply something that is lost. Given the biblical witness, faithful citizenship seems to entail acting for the good of the earthly city in every way we can—even if the earthly city is not an ideal godly society. In the sixth century B.C., the prophet Jeremiah told those residents of Jerusalem who had been taken captive and brought to Babylon, “Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (Jeremiah 29:7). That they were in the pagan Babylonian Empire did not mean that they could simply check out and only work for their own good. No, they were to pray for their city itself and seek out its good.

Yes, that entails more than voting. (In the case of the Israelites in Babylon, of course, it didn’t include any voting.) But, in the case of Christians here and now, acting for the public good seems at minimum to include voting. If we have the chance to effect good in our time by voting for the better candidate or party, we ought to do that.

Of course, most people will have followed me thus far. It’s that question of a better candidate or party that gets them. That’s usually what they mean when they say they have concerns of conscience: that because Donald Trump isn’t fully with them on abortion or IVF limitations, that there is no way to say that he is better than Kamala Harris.

This thinking is understandable but mistaken. For, if Donald Trump is not the perfect pro-life candidate, he is certainly far superior to Kamala Harris. Pro-life activist Lila Rose has certainly been outspoken about her opposition to Donald Trump’s current abortion policy position. But, as she wrote in a long post on X this week, she has decided to vote for Donald Trump because “Kamala Harris’ policies and record on abortion are objectively worse than Trump’s.”

Indeed, Rose rehearses Harris’s record as Attorney General of California, which included the selective prosecution of a pro-life journalist who had revealed Planned Parenthood’s selling of baby parts and also the use of her power to force crisis pregnancy centers to advertise for abortion.

As for what Harris will do, Rose rehearses Harris’s promise to codify Roe v. Wade in law and thus get rid of any abortion limitations at all. More than that, “Harris opposes conscience exceptions for healthcare professionals, meaning she supports forcing healthcare professionals and hospitals, including those of faith, to commit abortions or lose their ability to practice medicine.” And, this first presidential candidate to visit an abortion clinic as part of her campaign “has made unfettered support for abortion a central tenet of her campaign” and, via her campaign, “spread massive amounts of disinformation about abortion, claiming that miscarriage treatments are banned in pro-life states (they are not) and blaming abortion-related deaths on pro-life laws.” Rose accurately depicts Harris’s “unflinching support for abortion” and summarizes, “If fascism is the alignment of all power to the state, Kamala Harris is a model abortion fascist.”

On the other hand, Rose notes that Trump spent two hours talking to her about her concerns and changed his mind on Florida’s Amendment 4 after being swayed by pro-life objections to it. Pro-lifers may not be completely happy with his positions, but they know he will listen to them and be amenable to reason on this issue.

Rose is making a rational choice that should be evident to anyone with a conscience. No, Donald Trump is not a savior. No, we don’t believe in him in the way we believe in God. But we know that he will be much better on this issue than Kamala Harris will be. And we know that on many other issues, he will also be much better. On men in women’s sports and locker rooms, on kids receiving medical interventions that would mutilate their genitals or stop their natural development, on religious liberty in general: Trump’s record in his first term and his positions now stand for themselves. They are better by far than what Kamala Harris has done or what she proposes to do.

And this doesn’t even get to issues such as his foreign policy record, which yielded peace in surprising places such as Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Vladimir Putin didn’t invade any territory during Trump’s term as he did during the terms of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden-Kamala Harris. And Israel was at peace, too.

What too many people troubled in conscience seem to think is that voting for a candidate is something like a seal of approval on all aspects of the person, his or her record, and his or her policy positions. The difficulty with this approach is that, if actually followed, one could vote for only a tiny number of candidates.

No, an election is about electing—choosing—from among a certain number of candidates. In our system, only two candidates have a chance. We might not like either candidate. We might prefer that other people had won the nominations. But that’s how all of life is. We face constrained choices that we would sometimes rather not make. But make them we must. And, in the case of political offices, especially the highest political offices, such decisions are momentous.

The differences between what Donald Trump and Kamala Harris promise are stark ones. They will affect the lives of Christians and everyone else in the earthly city in which we dwell. How do we seek the earthly city’s welfare? Certainly by prayer and doing what we can to build families, businesses, and communities. But also by voting for the candidates who will best protect and develop the welfare of this land. Kamala Harris promises to crush religious liberty when it comes to abortion and other issues. Donald Trump does not. Even on that basis alone, we can see what the difference means.  

When we are in Heaven, our citizenship will not entail any voting at all. There is no need to vote for the Savior. Nor do we need to vote for a savior here on earth. But our citizenship does entail making the best choice possible among potential leaders so that we and our fellow earthly citizens can live in peace, prosperity, and the freedom to do what God has asked us. The case for Donald Trump is not based on his bringing our salvation. It is based in his being the best candidate to protect religious and civil liberties, keep peace in the foreign countries with which we have influence, and ensure the ability of Americans to thrive economically.   

In an imperfect world, a good citizen can and should vote for the best candidate.

David P. Deavel teaches at the University of St. Thomas in Houston, Texas. A past Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute, he is a Senior Contributor at The Imaginative Conservative. Follow him on X @davidpdeavel.