by Sam Pierce
Given the struggle within a Republican Party that quite frankly teeters on the brink of being not worth saving, it seems necessary to address the fallacy of the dreaded “single issue voter.” Most often the phrase is used to denigrate and minimize those of us that have a threshold we cannot cross by supporting someone that believes it is acceptable to kill the unborn. The phrase is intended to paint pro-life voters as bible thumping neanderthals whose only concern is forcing our values on our fellow citizens.
Now, as the Republican Party (national and local) is at a crossroads, there are those who believe the party should abandon single issue (pro-life) voters as a means to garnering a broader appeal. Certainly I am not breaking any new ground here, but any voter that has some threshold he or she cannot cross is a single issue voter! If a voter is not a single issue voter, meaning there is no position a candidate could hold that would disqualify him or her as worthy of support, then why would this voter care who gets his support? If a voter has no threshold and is a partisan, then he is a partisan for some reason other than issue positions, perhaps it is because his parents were members of the specific party.
The pro-choice Republicans who seek pro-choice candidates to support are single issue voters if a pro-life candidate will not have their support based his opposition to abortion. The dirty little secret is that this “single issue” is the same “single issue” for which we neanderthal pro-lifers are maligned. Am I missing something? Is it only one side of one issue that qualifies as “single issue?”
Certainly there are other issues that qualify as “single issue” or threshold issues in the eyes of voters. Government spending might give some voters cause to cast or withhold a vote. Perhaps a candidate’s stance on illegal immigration serves as a threshold for some voters. Could a politician’s views regarding military issues prevent certain voters from supporting him? Some might not approve of a candidate’s threat to increase taxes. A few might believe that a candidate’s stance on the right to keep and bear arms could allow or prevent support.
I contend that the complaint against the “single issue” voter is a fallacy since anyone with any threshold is a “single issue voter.” The fact that I, as a person that could never cast a vote for anyone whose character is so flawed that he or she believes it is acceptable to kill children, have this threshold does not mean that this is my only threshold! Refer to the preceding paragraph and you’ll see some of my other thresholds or my other “single issues.” I also contend that my belief that a pro-choice position is indicative of a deep character flaw which would likely affect a candidate’s actions in other areas, does not mean that I believe the pro-choice population should be excluded from the party! It simply means that I will not support any of them as candidates. The same applies to any threshold.
I would ask those who seek to expunge the pro-life element from the Republican Party the following question. How does the flawed Supreme Court decision that prevents individual states from deciding an issue such as abortion restriction mesh with your ideal of limited central government? Perhaps your ideal isn’t limited central government as much as it is promoting abortion access.
I suggest that we consider the United States Constitution and a candidate’s likelihood of following it when deciding who to support for national offices and that we do the same on a local level. It would seem that this threshold or “single issue” (constitutionality) would simplify the process and leave less room for error.
Cross-posted at: Malignant Liberal Idiocy
