Obama and McCain promise to be in the news through November (and even to January), so as far as engaging the news goes, I'm entrenched along with these news stories. Here's some thoughts about one-issue voting.
I have had many conversations with self-seeming "enlightened" Christians or other voters who claim they have the voting process figured out. These "enlightened" voters have incredible disdain for one-issue voting. Generally, that one-issue is abortion. So, generally, "enlightened" is a self-made construction to vote Democratic. Generally, these "enlightened" individuals show disgust for what they think are "unenlightened" (read uninformed or absent-minded) and traditionally conservative evangelicals Christians. I'm not a one-issue voter, but I'm also not enlightened by a political agenda either. But the one-issue voter shouldn't be condemned.
Many conservative estimates place the number of abortions in America, yearly, as over 1 million. Now, I have no intention of being a philosophical utilitarian here at all, but over the last 5 years in Iraq, no where close to 5 million people have been killed. For those of us who believe abortion really is the taking of life (how could it not be!?), the one issue becomes vastly and comparitively important. Now, the "enlightened" person may argue like this:
"Voting only on abortion for the President shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the federal government works." This isn't necessarily true.
Many one-issue voters wish to see incremental change because it is the only change that seems possible- a chipping away of Roe, if you will. Furthermore, the President appoints judges, approved by Congress to the Supreme and Federal courts. This is no small influence. Also, this argument ignores the vastness that the federal government and the powers of the President have come to be since FDR. The President has enormous influence over other branches of government, over state governments, and over influence in the media. Put plainly, the President just isn't limited to the powers in the Constitution any more.
Now, I said I'm not a one-issue voter, but that doesn't mean that the abortion issue carries no weight with me. It carries enormous weight, on the scale of the amount of deaths that occur yearly due to abortion. But I also believe in responsible foreign policy, certain liberal positions, and certain conservative positions. But in my grasping of the complexities of political and economic issues, I dare not chastise one-issue voters.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Posts
14 comments:
Agreed. See the poll on my blog right now.
What's interesting about the abortion argument is that the opposition seems to want speak only to the angle of "what's best for the woman." Is the baby not a human? Let's not talk about that, let's instead discuss how we've decided that it's a Right for someone to kill a baby because they don't want it. The reasoning used to focus merely on rape, incest, and life of the mother, but I've frankly been surprised to see that recently the talking point has unashamedly moved to "babies get in the way of life plans."
I think it speaks to a deepening selfishness in our culture, one that is not only tolerated, but held high as a virtue. To set goals for yourself and pursue them with reckless abandon, regardless how it affects others, is actually regarded as a good thing!
But given the new string of arguments in favor of abortion, my question has now become, "Well, why not give the mother a 90-day trial period? Or let a stressed out mother off the hook for killing her 2 year old when she determined that the toddler was just not worth the trouble and getting in the way of her life plans."
You see, to accommodate their views on this Convenience Abortion, they must have decided that a baby is not human until outside of the womb. Could you really say that you know, without a shred of doubt, that a fetus isn't human? I couldn't. Why take the chance on murder just because the consequences of your actions don't allow your life plans to continue unfettered?
Also, this morning I've been listening to the Hugh Hewitt Show's podcast, and on Friday he interviewed Denver's Archbishop Charles Chaput. The Archbishop talks at length about a voter's responsibility to consider abortion in their vote. Quite interesting, especially considering your post this morning.
Interesting- Chaput has spoken at Denver Seminary before, and has resonatingly evangelical (better to say "conservative Christian" here) sentiments, even about a relationship with Christ.
I agree wholeheartedly with you, Kev. I just can't believe so many people in our society think that murder is okay to a certain degree. Relative truth really has crept in very far.
Amen! Thank you for articulating this. (I'm biased - I like Dave.)
Good point. I was thinking the other day about people who are one-issue voters or people who are obsessed with one or two issues and don't weigh in on the others, like a certain constructive curmudgeon...
But anyway, I think that voters tend to gravitate towards an issue that they are passionate about because it effects them directly. People who have been in the military or know people in the military will value highly the issue of the war. People who have had an abortion or know someone who has had an abortion will gravitate towards that issue.
Now, I don't want to paint any kind of generalization but it's no wonder that when Obama speaks to poor minority inner city people he talks about issues that effect poor minority inner city people, like health care and jobs. And when McCain is talking to a group of war veterans he talks about national security. Why? Because politicians know that people are passionate about one or two issues out there; hence, one issue voters. Is this necessarily a bad thing? I think you've argued persuasively that it is not. It's quite interesting though how psychology plays into political theory.
Good insights Daniel. Of course those thoughts have sifted around in my head, but they bear directly on this topic- so thanks for pointing that out.
Good insights Daniel. Of course those thoughts have sifted around in my head, but they bear directly on this topic- so thanks for pointing that out.
Daniel... gonna have to part company with you on this one, at least a little. Yes, many people are single-issue voters because of a personal connection, but I don't think that's always the case. I believe many people on the pro-life/anti-abortion/whatever-you-want-to-call-it side have little or no personal connection to abortion, but the level of moral outrage they experience over that one issue makes the others seem insignificant. There are probably folks out there who feel similarly about the environment or the war as well.
Speaking of single-issue stuff, it annoys me when evangelicals feel the need to balance "how can you vote for Obama given his stance on abortion?" comments with "how can you vote for McCain given his stance on poverty?" That shows a lack of understanding of the nature of the conversation: Obama says women should be allowed to terminate their pregnancies for any reason, McCain says they shouldn't; Obama says the government should directly step in to help poor people, McCain says bigger government is the wrong answer to poverty. On the first question, they have entirely different answers; on the second question, they have similar answers with different theories of getting there.
This surely tips my hat regarding my preferred candidate. As it is, I happen to agree with McCain against Obama on more than just abortion, and there are other issues where I feel I am just the wrong person to adjudicate between the two different political philosophies, so I don't pretend to have strong feelings one way or the other.
All that being said, let's play the hypothetical game: What would I do if I agreed wholeheartedly with a pro-choice candidate on everything other than his/her view on abortion, and disagreed with the pro-life scumbag on everything but that one issue? Two questions would cross my mind: (1) What is inconsistent, either in my political philosophy or in these candidates' political philosophies or both, such that I can be aligned with someone on every issue but the most important one or the most important issue but no other issues? (2) Will the two-party system ever die in my lifetime?
(Has this comment reached rant status yet? Have I said enough to arouse a response from someone to set me straight on something?)
Ben,
I appreciate your thoughts. I would also tip my hand a little- I agree wholeheartedly. The whole Obama-sensibility seems more like a style over substance. I'm not saying Obama is style over substance, but supporting him because certain issues are now in evangelical edginess (environmentalism, big-government solutions to poverty) seems a little to hollow for me.
I do happen to agree with McCain on many policy issues, but also happen to be a little liberal or moderate where he has historically voted.
If we were to vote completely on sensibility, though, and our desire to see a "moderate" candidate, then McCain really is the true moderate- not based on the last 4 years, but the last 20. He has voted on the liberal side of issues regarding big business communication regulation, campaign finance, gun control, and many others. The balance issue is in favor of McCain.
You're right Dave. Given the balance argument, McCain is the clear winner. Obama trying to position himself as a moderate--which is beginning to happen and will even more so as we get closer to November--is laughable. The least strategically intelligent thing the Obama campaign is doing right now is trying to peg McCain as the same as Bush. For better or worse, he is not the same as Bush. Anyone with a lick of sense knows this, regardless if they like McCain or not.
Hey Ben, indeed. I didn't mean to generalize. Shoulda pulled out the "some people..." card better!
Dave,
Wise words. It even seemed a bit C.S. Lewis-esque in your use of "the enlightened" (referring to the "innovator" from the *Abolition of Man*)
Take care
David,
One need not make abortion an "issue" in this campaign as though it were on one side of a "pro's and con's" list for each candidate. Where a candidate stands on sanctity of life is a philosophical foundation for the way they will think about everything else. If a candidate is ashamed or with false humilty, "unable" to whole heartedly vow to protect the unborn, this says a lot about their world view. Sanctity of life is foundational to a biblical world view. Vowing to care for the poor and marginalized makes no sense without it.
Susan,
You make an excellent point. And that is certainly how I try and construct a framework with which to vote.
But I suppose I'm trying not to demonize the people that are one-issue voters, that may not have the knowledge, capacity, or care to know the complexity of other issues.
In all, being a one-issue, anti-abortion voter is a better angle than many others, but not necessarily the tack I take.
Post a Comment