We are at a time in our nation’s election cycle where political rhetoric has become so inflamed that many, perhaps most of both political parties discount it as meaning anything. The problem is perhaps shown best when any candidate reduces politics to simple name-calling as if that were a substitute for ideas.

We, the electorate, go wrong when we fall for such appeals to personal animosity. How often has it occurred that we hear a politician has done a bad or incompetent thing and we convert that to, “That’s a really bad person.” Then a clarifying story comes out showing the initial report to have been either untrue or highly exaggerated. Rather than feeling better about the person, have we ever gotten such pleasure out of thinking them evil, that the truth just irritates us? Have we even refused to accept a clarification because our opposition must be a bad person? When that becomes our path we have lost the capacity for rational distinction. Irresponsible politicians seize that opportunity to launch further encouragements to outrage.

Such ploys can work even in the minds of those who are usually calm, rock-solid citizens of good heart and stout religion. Knowing full well the meaning of contradiction, these are the voters who tell friends they are going to “hold their nose” or “look the other way,” and vote for Donald Trump because they prefer the Republican political platform. Implicit in their thought, sometimes even frankly stated is the idea that they may not like Mr. Trump, don’t necessarily trust him, and may see him as a swaggering braggart and an autocrat who doubts the importance of the Constitution — a kind of person they would not have to dinner — still, they’re going to accept him for president because they’re “voting for the platform.”

In their eyes, that may mean a variety of things. They may think they’re preserving the Second Amendment, controlling the border, supporting the police and military services, aiding veterans or preventing abortions. They may encapsulate all manner of things then sum up with (drums and flourishes, please), “I’m voting for freedom and the American Dream, I’m voting for the Flag and the Republic we live in! I’m voting for the right to worship God in the way I chose! I’m not just voting for a person, I’m voting for the future of my Country!”

Let us put aside whether or not that is just political blather, often goals shared by most people of whatever political stripe, but sounded on one side as if the concerns listed were exclusive to them. Given that the voter we’re talking about thinks Mr. Trump is an unsavory person, at best, or a felon, at worst, but is still going to vote for him to get the political platform they prefer, the question becomes, can good be achieved through acting badly?

One of the more bizarre aspects of this election cycle is that some the hardiest of the Christian Right have touted an affirmative answer to that question. Somehow, it is said, God wants to use the evil character of Don Trump to bring about the good God has in store for us. Think of Don Trump as Nebuchadnezzar in hair spray. Voters who take their religion seriously, yet are going to hold their noses and vote for Mr. Trump, might remember the Apostle Paul. He roundly condemned the idea of doing bad so that good can come of it (Romans 6:8). He knew that nothing so fits the meaning of corruption as when we set aside our own moral code to achieve a goal we currently prefer; those who accept Paul’s writings for instruction might want to think about that.