Single Issues

If there is one thing all thinking-people oppose, it's the single-issue voter, who makes what should be a complex decision, because of a single factor: for example, an anti-abortion political candidate who favors trade with China, waffles on the issue of gun control, opposes global warning legislation, and supports LGBTQ members, may be chosen or opposed because of passionate statements about conservation – either for or against.

It is understood, if regrettable, that a decision may be made solely out of fear. Where there is no secret ballot, a “wrong” vote – like one against a tyrant – may be enough to get oneself killed. Only a fool or a selfless idealist – not always mutually exclusive – would take the risk of defying those more powerful.

But in a free society like ours – one in which no one will know what position we took on a particular issue or candidate unless we choose to disclose that information – there's no hazard involved in voting as our conscience dictates. Yet, to a greater or a lesser degree, we're all single issue voters.

And, while we're loath to admit it, we all know it to be true.

For some the single issue of consequence is the political affiliation of a particular candidate. The voter has decided before the election – even before the nomination – one way or another in regard to choice. Particular positions are irrelevant. The decision often represents views indoctrinated in childhood and based on the preferences or prejudices voiced by one's parents. And sometimes it is in rebellion against them. But it is a decision that takes precedence over any actual consideration of a candidate's stand on the various issues that make the campaign so complex for others.

There are, however, many “uncommitted” voters who are intent on basing their votes on the specific campaign promises made by candidates – what they say they will do in regard to the important questions of our times. Those voters are concerned with prospects in many areas – foreign policy, the economy, the environment, choice of a nominee for an available seat on the Supreme Court, and “rule of law” are examples. But, for the most part, they don't have clear-cut criteria for choices. They don't ascribe particular weights to each issue. They all must be considered. They're all important.

Eventually the time comes when a decision must be reached however. Since there are no strict points of reference, though, the eventual choice is usually based more on “feelings” than on science. And those feelings are often based on a particular issue which is, for the voter, the crucial “tipping point,” the issue most critical to that elector. And, absent the single factor of party loyalty, the uncommitted citizen – and that is what most of us claim to be – often finds the balance difficult to resolve, falling back on the one considered to be that of the greatest importance, whether it's gun control, jobs, abortion, animal rights, or whatever, basing the choice on a perception of a “right” or “wrong” stance on that issue. “Are you for me or against me on what really counts?” Not an intellectual decision, but one based on the gut. And, ultimately, based on a single factor. It's all-important.

And that's why politicians take clear and un-nuanced positions on so many issues so much of the time. Their goal is to attract the voters for whom that particular issue is the critical one. No one should believe that they actually mean what they say; what is more important is that they say it. And what is most important is that they get elected.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As I write this we're in the middle of a presidential “battle” between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. (I know this will be published long after the election, but that doesn't really matter in terms of the points I'm trying to make.) It's a bitter and very convoluted election with many substantive matters at issue – matters about which I have very strong feelings. Under ordinary circumstances I might even want to make a decision based on one of those issues. My problem is that I don't trust either of them. I usually try to base trust on past performance, but the more I learn about the two of them, and specifically how they have acted and performed in the past, the less confidence I have in their stated positions on my one issue. Or anything else. So I'll vote for Johnson. I guess my one critical issue this time around is trust. And I don't know enough about Johnson yet to distrust him.