In my last post I made the case for why being pro-life is the morally correct position to take. My friend Daniel incorporated my post into his own thoughts about a another related topic: single-issue voting. We got to talking, and I then I got to thinking. Is being a single-issue voter a good or a bad thing?
What does it mean to be a single-issue voter?
My gut-level reaction is…it depends on what the term “single-issue voter” means. One possible definition is somebody who puts on blinders and only casts his vote based on what is being said about a single issue. This seems like an obviously bad approach to politics. Another possible definition is somebody who pays attention to what each party is saying about a range of different issues, understands the trade-offs being made by each, and then still makes a decision that is influenced very heavily by a single issue. I think this can be a good way to approach politics, and is the definition I’ll be discussing for the rest of this article.
A moral imperative
In certain situations it could be considered morally imperative to be a single-issue voter. Building on the analogy used in my previous post, who could argue with 20/20 hindsight that the abolition of slavery wasn’t worthy of single-issue voting? Or voting against the Nazis when they were coming to power? The key ingredient here is an awareness and understanding of the times. Assuming you have full confidence in your opinion on the issue itself, the biggest factor you will have to wrestle with is all the other positions you are also implicitly casting your vote for. The net benefit/harm of the policies each party stands for should weigh into your decision.
Let’s take the abortion issue as an example. It’s hard to imagine another issue today that would be a better candidate for justifying single-issue voting. The merits and drawbacks of different policies can often be endlessly debated without a clear consensus emerging about their effects. But with today’s abortion policies, we are allowing the direct termination of innocent lives for the sake of convenience. We couldn’t even get a ban after 20 weeks through the Senate, and it included exceptions for the life of the mother and for rape or incest. That is appalling. Personally, it’s very difficult for me to cast a vote without the huge weight of this factor disproportionately influencing my decision making. If you are against this piece of legislation, I frankly do not care what you think the minimum wage should be.
Maintaining awareness
Now let’s say, for the sake of discussion, that all of a sudden the pro-life party started campaigning on hauling a certain group of people off to Nazi style concentration camps. Well now the case for single-issue voting on the abortion issue has been weakened quite a bit, to say the least. The situation has changed and now the calculation must be performed again. No matter how grave the issue, single-issue voting should be accompanied by a continuous reevaluation of the political landscape.
Conclusion
In short, I don’t think single-issue voting should be your standard operating procedure. But if you arrive there after some deep thinking, there is a chance you might just be on the right side of history.
As always, if you are enjoying the ideas I’ve presented or you think I’m crazy and want to tell me why I’m wrong, go ahead and subscribe to stay up to date with all the latest content.