It is a time, like past times, of pressures and temptations, sticks and carrots.

The year was 1530 and Thomas More, Chancellor of England, had a decision to make. King Henry VIII, frustrated that his wife, Catherine of Aragon, had failed to produce a male heir (necessary, in Henry’s mind, to avoid dynastic wars), wanted the Pope to invalidate his marriage, which would free Henry to solve the problem. More opposed the plan and, dutifully, decided to offer his resignation. The offer was refused with the tacit understanding that, while serving as chancellor, More would remain silent on the subject. Then things got interesting. As depicted in the classic play A Man For All Seasons (1960) by Robert Bolt, More continued as chancellor for another two years, resigning his position in 1532 and three years later (spoiler alert), for refusing to take the oath of the Act of Succession, was found guilty of treason and beheaded.

Bolt’s fascinating play is a study of the pressures and temptations More endures over five tormenting years. Arrayed against him are family, friends, colleagues, society, and government. Even the boatmen (think taxi drivers) express their disdain! Each faction skillfully plays its best and unique cards to persuade More to take the oath: friend Norfolk, “Why can't you do as I did and come with us, for fellowship?”; Daughter Margaret argues since “God more regards the thoughts of the heart than the words of the mouth… Then say the words of the oath and in your heart think otherwise”; wife Alice, “You’re content, then, to be shut up here with mice and rats when you might be home with us!”. A good debate can be had over which of these More suffers most intensely.

While there is no direct threat of death, I think there are parallels we can draw to the pressures and temptations conservatives are experiencing in the aftermath of a Trump nomination. Arrayed against us are friends, family, colleagues and the Republican Party, each making its best argument to persuade conservatives to pull the lever for Trump: Supreme Court appointments, the border, ISIS, the economy, welfare, national debt, health insurance, taxes, regulation, trade, foreign policy, minimum wage, social values, free speech, Second Amendment, national defense, EPA, etc. No sane person, regardless of justifiable opposition, would withhold their vote for Trump, because that would guarantee the decline and fall of the United States of America. From TV and Twitter, Facebook and forums, bumpers and blogs, comes the relentless scolding: Face reality and get on board the Trump train! By all evidence, the arguments are effective as each day brings new declarations of support… or capitulation, depending on your perspective.

I confess I am sorely tempted by the Supreme Court argument: We may not know what Trump will do but we know precisely what a Democrat nominee will do; so cast a vote for the Constitution and the lives of the most innocent and defenseless among us – the unborn. It’s powerful!

In A Man For All Seasons, King Henry tempts More: “If you could come with me, you are the man I would soonest raise -- yes, with my own hand.” More responds: “Oh, Your Grace overwhelms me!” Bearing in mind that More is already Lord Chancellor, what ‘raising’ did Henry have in mind? If More would simply say the words of the oath and, in his heart, think otherwise, consider what he might have accomplished had he remained chancellor and Henry’s close confidante. After all, More was admired and influential throughout all classes of English and European society (“This silence of his is bellowing up and down Europe!”). Might he have moderated future policies under which the poor suffered? Not all monasteries dissolved by Henry were corrupt, nor their wealth mishandled. How many lives might More have saved by remaining by Henry’s side providing wise counsel? More was conscious of this in a response to the Spanish ambassador: “Have you considered that what has been done badly, might have been done worse, with a different chancellor.” Country, family, career, his very life -- with so much at stake what sane person would refuse to take the oath? “How is it you cannot see? Everyone else does.”

My friends maintain they understand my dilemma but insist that the choice before us is bad or really bad, regrettable but necessary. Think of the good Trump might do. They accuse me of selfishly wanting to remain morally pure. And I hear Cardinal Wolsey: “You're a constant regret to me, Thomas. If you could just see facts flat-on, without that horrible moral squint... With a little common sense you could have made a statesman.” Do my pro-Trump conservative friends recall the pro-life Democrats who chose insurance for the uninsured over protection for the unborn? Was theirs not the same temptation, regrettable but necessary?

And when my friends persist I want to respond as More did to his friend Norfolk: “I will not give in, because I oppose it -- I do -- not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my appetites, but I do, -- I! Is there in the midst of all this muscle, no single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's, but is just Norfolk? There is! Give that some exercise, my lord!”. The influential, who once denounced Trump in various ways as a fast option to hell, now declare him to be the best chance for salvation. When I ask the Trump bandwagon jumpers how they reconcile the two, they dismiss it as just politics. The first position was politics, the second is conviction. The distinction eludes me but it is convenient! King Henry decries “a mass that follows me because it follows anything that moves”.

What is a conservative to do?

When More first learns of the oath, he is passionate about the wording: “An oath is made of words! It may be possible to take it. Or avoid it… God made the angels to show him splendor... But man he made to serve him wittily, in the tangle of his mind… Our natural business lies in escaping -- so let’s get home and study this Bill.” Might a conservative yet escape?

Not voting for Trump is a vote for the Democratic nominee. This assumes the voter always votes and always votes Republican. Let’s allow the assumption. What if I could find a voter who always votes and always votes Democrat and shares the same antipathy for their nominee? This person is pressured by the converse: Not voting for the Democratic nominee is a vote for Trump. If we promised one another to vote “none of the above” then we will have escaped!

Intermission: Please take the time you need to express righteous indignation at the very thought of trusting someone who always votes [insert party affiliation]. It’s an oxymoron.

There are three additional benefits to this brilliant strategy. If enough voters join in (in effect, bow out), whoever wins the election will have a weak mandate which may temper otherwise aggressive policies. The establishment of both parties will receive a clear message of frustration. And Trump supporters will be euphoric because we are, after all, modelling their hero and making a deal!

By all indicators, this impasse will persist. Perhaps the best we can achieve is a respect for a considered position we cannot comprehend.  It is finally a matter of conscience. More helps again: “And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? …I believe, when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties they lead their country by a short route to chaos.”

In considering More’s charitable inclinations to give away everything, his steward Matthew (the common man) reflects:

“There must be something he wants to keep -- it’s only common sense.”