Is your vote a moral choice?

There is so much emotion around voting based on which candidate is on the right side of morality. This issue basically has two parts. One is judgments about the individual candidates themselves and the other is the policies advocated by the people who seek public office.

Unfortunately, most of the voter's attention is focused on being against the person they don't like. In other words, its much easier and more convenient to criticize and reject the person you don't want than to ponder the effect of that person in their governing practices, AND the basis for rejecting them is more likely about their character or morality. The idea that you vote for the person you like personally more than for any policy reason has been captured in the question, "which candidate would you prefer to have a beer with?"

More recently candidates can easily be rejected based on their political correctness or sexual mistakes of the past. Elections ultimately become voting AGAINST the candidate you dislike more than voting FOR the one you believe will govern in a way that is best for society.  Because elections are essentially a choice between 2 candidates, people on each side try to "justify" their vote by deeming the one they are against as immoral or otherwise unworthy.

Beyond fondness for and moral consideration about individual candidates, it has also become customary to judge political views you hold as right (aligned with truth) and those you oppose as wrong or immoral. This is a more complex and interesting topic. More liberal progressive advocates believe income inequality, closed borders, lack of access to education and healthcare by the poor, war, anti-abortion as a restriction on women's reproductive rights, and demographic privilege are immoral. Their view is increasingly seen as Biblical. They believe a moral people (represented by their government) are only JUST when they provide all citizens with what they need (and maybe want) regardless of their ability to pay for it. The idea of "deserve" means the govt grants people God given rights to certain benefits just because they are human. This leads to more of a socialistic view of the economic and political system. Govt control is the best producer and distributor of goods and services to society. Often this is expressed by pointing to the immoral nature of capitalism based on greed of those who game the system. 

The opposing view, also often biblically based, is that the most moral thing a society can do is to grow prosperity, which ultimately produces the least amount of poverty and neglect. Here, personal liberty, such as right to life and religious freedom, and free markets are God given rights that provide incentives to take personal responsibility for actions and to innovate so that BOTH the risk taker and society can gain from new and improved products and services. Justice is not guaranteeing equal outcomes but a system of people getting what they deserve based on what they do. Privilege is immoral because it is seen more as sloughing and entitlement. Conservative political people see government control as a constraint on prosperity and personal freedom. This view is seen by many as the moral imperative of society and becomes the basis for choosing their candidate.

While each side touts their view as moral and the opposing view as immoral, there is a chance that the choice is not a moral one at all. The choice is maybe JUST one of civics and economics. What if an election was society simply choosing whether they prefer to give up some prosperity for more safety or whether they wish to give up some safety to provide opportunity for higher levels of prosperity.

These are the choices every country makes at every election.

The trade-offs between the human's deep seated desires for safety and liberty is a very REAL choice in elections, but its not a moral choice. I ponder the time when public discourse debates the competing biases and not camouflage the debate in which candidate has the moral high ground ....