We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Does character still matter in our politicians? Yes, it does, but not in the same way it did in the past.

“Character is on the ballot.” This is a common refrain from pundits and voters alike during any election season. But is that still true today? For many evangelicals and conservatives, the answer is “yes” — just not with the same weight it held in the past.

‘Who will support policies that reflect the character we want to see in our society?’

Since Donald Trump entered the mainstream political scene in 2015, evangelical Christians and conservatives have faced growing criticism. Observers note our opposition to Bill Clinton in the late 1990s after his sex scandal and then point to our support for Trump, a man with his own flaws and controversies. They ask, “What gives?” Are we hypocrites seeking only power? Is it a matter of having “our guy” in office while condemning “the other guy”?

I don’t think so. There’s more to it.

My co-host on “The Bully Pulpit”podcast, Eric Teetsel, has a theory about what’s changed. In the 1990s, the political landscape was different. Back then, the gap between Republican and Democratic policies was not as stark as it is today. On key issues like abortion, Democrats insisted it should be “safe, legal, and rare.” Both parties supported border security. Foreign policy views were more aligned than divided. The differences were there, but they weren’t chasms.

In this environment, character often served as the tiebreaker. Without a deep policy divide, integrity, honesty, and moral standing carried considerable weight in determining which candidate better represented the country’s values. For evangelicals, and voters in general, character was a critical factor because it provided insight into a candidate’s potential for leadership in a relatively aligned political field. Small scandals could derail campaigns because, in a landscape of similar policy positions, they served as differentiators. Think about Howard Dean’s 2004 campaign-ending scream; it seemed unbecoming for a presidential candidate. That standard feels almost unthinkable today.

The ground has shifted dramatically since then.

Today, we are faced with deeply contrasting policy platforms. The issues are no longer primarily debates over taxes or spending; they have become ideological battlegrounds. We’re at odds over fundamental moral questions that shape the future of society — marriage, gender ideology, religious freedom, unrestricted abortion, censorship, national security, and more.

The differences between parties aren’t incremental; they’re categorical.

In this polarized environment, the personal character of candidates no longer stands out as much. Moral shortcomings and scandals are now common across the political spectrum, leaving us without any truly “ideal” candidates. With candidates often leveling out on character flaws, policy has emerged as the clear differentiator.

To be clear, we still want leaders with strong character. But when both parties present candidates with moral failings, we must prioritize other factors. For many, the question has become, “Who will support policies that reflect the character we want to see in our society?”

This shift is not about justifying sin or minimizing integrity; it’s about the stakes in today’s political landscape.

Policies reflect values that will shape the future, determine rights and freedoms, and frame the moral fabric of the nation.

When policies differ as dramatically as they do now, the battle lines are clearer. For example, many evangelicals supported Donald Trump not out of blindness to his flaws but because his policies align more closely with their convictions than those of the opposing platform. The same logic applies to future candidates who may not be flawless role models but who will champion policies that align with our values and safeguard freedoms.

So is this hypocrisy? I don’t believe so. It’s a recalibration in light of the changed world around us.

People often throw around accusations of hypocrisy without accounting for how the political landscape has evolved. This isn’t about excusing moral failures; it’s about weighing them differently in an era when the stakes are impossibly high. Evangelicals aren’t saying that personal integrity in a leader is unimportant. But we have come to a place where the character of a candidate’s policies often speaks more to the future of the nation than does personal perfection.

Policies reflect a form of collective character. They determine the moral and ethical direction of society. While we still want leaders who can set a positive example, the truth is we can no longer afford to focus solely on personal lives.

Today, policies reflect values that will shape the future, determine rights and freedoms, and frame the moral fabric of the nation.

So does character matter? Absolutely. But in today’s climate, the character that matters most is embedded in the policies our leaders support. That’s not hypocrisy; it’s an adaptation to a political landscape where our values face unprecedented challenges. In this environment, we must weigh the complete character of a candidate — both his personal life and the values his policies will bring to the country.

For evangelicals, voting isn’t just about picking a person; it’s about choosing policies that align with biblical truths and protecting the foundations that allow the gospel to flourish.

Today, the character of policy speaks louder than the individual character of a candidate. That’s a choice we’re making for the sake of our children, our communities, and our faith.