One Mind With But A Single Thought

Confession time: I'm a single-issue voter.

I know it's not fashionable to admit to such an approach. It marks me as a closed-minded bigot. I should make my decisions based on a full analysis of all issues rather than to use a single one as a benchmark. However I don't. I'm a single-issue voter.

But then, of course, so are you.

Perhaps our issues are different,ⁱ and the scope of our concerns as well, but when it comes down to making a choice there is usually some overriding point directing our decision. That point may be agreement or disagreement about a particular policy, or it may be party membership and a general political philosophy.ⁱⁱ It may even be our view of the trustworthiness of the candidate, possibly based on previous experience or performance and his record.ⁱⁱⁱ But when the time comes, one point will take precedence over everything else.^iv

(This state of affairs, by the way, is not limited to affairs of state, like politics. We make decisions whatever we do, not just in the voting booth. We do that whenever we buy something. And advertisers form focus groups all the time to try to determine what we're looking for – what will control our decisions. Is it price, a specific characteristic of a product, a combination of features, an overall impression, a dream, or something else? Perhaps we want a car that gets good gas mileage,^v or maybe it's a shampoo or skin cream made with some particular vegetable.^vi Possibly what is being sought is a fantasy of love or a feeling of patriotism. Or it could be brand loyalty. Maybe we identify with a famous entertainment or athletic star and will imitate him.^vii If he uses^viii a particular brand, so will we. In any event, we have to make a decision, and one of those factors will dominate our choice. And the advertisers want to know what it is.)

Advertisers like us single-issue people – as long as they can determine what that issue is and how to satisfy it.^ix As they say in politics, “It's the economy, stupid.” Some matter has gained the public's attention. It may not be limited to politics, but it's effective there. Once an area of concern is determined, it becomes the only one fit for discussion. It may, however, vary from one group to another. What sells in the rust belt may be of no concern in the Bible belt. The poor and the rich see the world differently, and political candidates either have to find a way to please both, or pick a group – which risks the alienation of a large number of voters.

It was easier in the old days. When speeches were give in different localities and had no effect on the larger population you could make different promises in different areas – even contradictory ones – and no one would be the wiser. National television makes that harder. So candidates have to hedge their bets by being as unclear as possible, while looking strong to all viewers. Charisma and “character” are emphasized, while positions and opinions are ambiguous.

And politicians, in their advertisements, denigrate their opponents rather than state their own records and positions. It's true that someone who has never held office won't have a record on which to run, but if he doesn't have opinions on current problems, or proposals on the way to improve things, the simple solution is to turn us against the other candidate(s). He is promoting our single-issue approach by trying to make our choice the rejection of the opposition. The issues may be complex, but the argument is that voting for someone else is a bad decision. Everything is incorporated into that one idea.

So having an issue – a benchmark – which will help you decide is a good thing. It's usually easier to get meaningful information if you focus on a single idea than if you try to learn about everything, or if you base your decision on some generalized, but vague, feature. As long as you're aware that the seller – politician, advertiser or whoever – is trying to outfox you, and you'll have to discount claims which seem to be bogus.

And that's the way it has to be with us all; that's the strategy we have to use. We may be concerned about a lot of things, but after considering them all one issue must tip the balance. It is our single-issue – the one on which we make our decision. But that's not a bad thing. We're fortunate to live in a democracy where we'll have the chance to change what didn't work out. Not everyone has that option. So we can choose to take a particular stance today knowing we can change our minds tomorrow. Today's single-issue needn't be tomorrow's, but in each case we have to have some deciding factor on which we will base our decision. That's certainly better than standing in the voting booth for hours and never reaching a conclusion.

Next episode: “Second Nature” – Sort of continuing the thought.

i     My single issue changes from time to time depending on the subject being discussed, the position(s) of the candidates (do they agree or disagree?), the general tenor of society, and a host of other considerations.

ii     For example a concern for the poor, or a libertarian approach.

iii    But, more likely, based on his good looks, or how he comes across on television.

iv     Even the decision to accept the Constitution was based on a Yes/No vote.

v     Of course when buying a car that uses more “non-polluting” electricity and less gasoline, very few people worry about the source of the electricity or the pollution that its production may cause.

vi    Vegetables seem to be popular whether or not they have any effect on your hair or skin.

vii   Or her.

viii   At least if he claims he uses it.

ix    Read “pander to it.” Advertisers and politicians have no fixed principles, except that of convincing their targets. And it doesn't matter how they do it.