In one of the more poorly written, logically deficient essays I've ever read — "Why It’s Justified To Vote For A Morally Questionable Politician" — Federalist contributor Denise McAllister argues indirectly in defense of Roy Moore that "God uses, in this secular sphere, all kinds of 'immoral' men and women to bring about his purposes for his church.... He is actually rather utilitarian and pragmatic regarding the secular world."
This pronunciamento is meant to be provocative and profound; it is meant to bolster McAllister's thesis that "to vote for … a person [that would be Mr. Moore] working in the secular arena who will bring about the 'greater good' despite being personally immoral … is justified."
Of course it is, in fact it has to be, since in Christian theology we are all immoral in some ways — humankind's perfection lay only in Christ. George Washington was prideful, Abraham Lincoln pondered the mortal sin of suicide, FDR slept around on Eleanor, yet therein sits the radiant trinity of American politics. That it never occurs to McAllister that the "sins" of these pols or others similar to them were and remain far less sinister than preying on teenage girls is merely one of her logical lapses.
Her greatest lapse is in declaring God — who, "utilitarian" that he is, is obviously in Moore's corner — to be a crackerjack political strategist. For it also never occurs to McAllister that the long-term harm to the GOP stemming from Moore's election is incalculable. In the short term, yes, Moore would be a vote for Donald Trump's cruel, unChristian tax bill, and he would prevent a Democrat from taking a Republican Senate seat. But the Democratic electoral profits to be made from having Moore as a 2018 avatar of GOP "principles" are incalculable as well. McAllister and her God can't see this, though, since they're both so anguished at the thought of a Democrat from Alabama.
Another peculiarity mushrooming from McCallister's mind is her assertion that "Unfortunately, many social conservatives, and Christians in particular, treat secular leaders … as if any stain on their character, fault from their distant past, or even theological apostasy disqualifies them from political leadership." What she staggeringly omits is twofold: It is many social conservatives, and Christians in particular, who comprise Moore's base, and their scolding judgment as formulated by the author applies only to Democratic pols.
Yet another chuckle-worthy peculiarity begins with McAllister's shocking confession that "I [voted for Trump] in the general," to be followed, several disjointed paragraphs later, by: "Will a serial liar deceive those who put him in office? Most likely."
I don't ordinarily read The Federalist. Today I rediscovered why.