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.

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.