I do not mean this to be a Trump or Kavanaugh thread (although I suspect it will eventually steer in that direction anyway), but tangentially, I do recall a lot of people in 2016 arguing that evangelicals or conservatives ought to vote on the basis of personal character and that Trump didn’t meet the criteria.
At the primary level, when there are still multiple candidates to choose from, that would make sense. But that doesn’t make sense once things have gotten to the general election stage and it’s your guy vs. the other side’s guy. (FWIW, I didn’t vote for Trump.) Because the practical consequences of the policies that a candidate supports outweigh the ramifications of his/her personal behavior or character.
If you are pro-choice, and you are faced with a decision between a pro-choice asshole or a pro-life model citizen, it makes no practical sense to vote for the model citizen just because of his upstanding record in the community. His decisions on abortion will affect thousands or maybe millions of women. (Mike Pence might fit that criteria, for instance.) Same on many other issues. If you own guns, you can very reasonably argue that it’s better for your interest to have a pro-gun asshole in office than a saint who wants to take away everyone’s guns. Ditto for one’s views on SSM, the environment, or any particular issue that is close or dear to you.
This isn’t to say that bad character can’t have a practical effect (having a jerk in office can lead to all kinds of practical problems) but that on weighty issues, the political leaning of a candidate is likely to affect so many people in so many ways that his or her personal character usually should seem small in comparison - or at least, to the extent where voting for a ‘good guy’ who opposes your views over a ‘bad guy’ who stands for your views could be politically suicidal.
Anyway, my 2 cents…thoughts?