I am not a single issue voter.

[TheWraith]

I've been hearing a lot of talk here lately from the single issue voter crowd. The people who say "I would never vote for a candidate who doesn't support abortion," or "I would never vote for a candidate who doesn't support gay rights," "I would never vote for a candidate who isn't clearly against the war," and on.

There tends to be an underlying implication in these statements that anyone who doesn't feel the same way is somehow less of a liberal. Well, I beg to differ. I'm not a single issue voter.

I care about ending the war. I care about the environment. I care about progressive taxation, and education. I care about a healthy public and a healthy government. I believe in all of these things, and I am not willing to sacrifice the rest of my beliefs on the altar of any one issue.

[Hosnon]

1. I agree. Various issues have different degrees of importance to me

depending on the circumstances.

The war happens to be highly important to me now.

Abortion...not so much. It's legal and can be set on the back burner right now (IMO). However, if it looked like there was a chance that it would be criminalized it would quickly come to the front.

[readmoreoften]

4. Abortion will be criminalized if...

An 86 year old man dies before the end of the next two years. And there are no clinics in 88% of the counties in America anyway. If you can't get an abortion anyway, it doesn't matter it's legality.

[Hosnon]

6. True, Stevens is old. But he may not die and if he does, the next justice

is not necessarily anti-abortion.

Wade is pretty save IMO.

[readmoreoften]

9. So you don't think GWB will appoint an anti-choice judge?

Let's not kid ourselves.

[Hosnon]

11. Never said that. Who knows...he may care more about appointing a

judge that will help validate his power-grabs.

Even so, that's not the point. That, to me, is not a pressing issue THIS election.

Bush still has to get to appoint. That appointee must still be anti-choice. A case capable of overturning Roe v. Wade must still make it to the Court. The Court must still overturn a 30-year old precedent. AND even after all that, abortion is not illegal. It is just not constitutionally protected.

[readmoreoften]

2. Wait, I'm confused.

So if you had to choose between a candidate that supports ending the war but polluting the environment and a candidate who supports cleaning up the environment but not ending the war? Who do you vote for?

It's hard not to be a "single issue voter" sometimes.

[ThomCat]

3. If you don't have any issues that are mandatory for you

then you'll sacrifice any issue given the right circumstances. If you'll sacrifice anything, then what are you really standing up for? Political expediency?

I demand that my candidates be pro-choice, pro civil rights for all people, pro peace, anti death penalty, etc.

They may not match all of the positions I want, in which case I may gripe about voting for them, but I'll pressure them heavily on those issues. And I'll pressure the party too.

I may accept some differences because there is no choice. But I will never sacrifice my priorities.

I'm one of those people who get slammed as a single issue vote. I have half a dozen single issues. Slam me if you want. I stand up for something!

[I Have A Dream]

14. Hi, ThomCat. What would you do in the Casey vs. Santorum situation?

I'm from Pennsylvania, and I've been pro-choice my entire life; in fact, it's one of the most important issues to me. (Or at least it was prior to Bush taking office. Now EVERYTHING's an important issue it seems. :(). However, even though Casey's anti-choice, how can I not vote for him given how bad Santorum is? :shrug:

What's a progressive to do? I will be voting for Casey, but I was wondering how you would handle it given what you said. Please know that I'm not trying to start a fight; I truly am interested in how you would approach this particular situation.

Thanks!

[ThomCat]

17. I'd vote for Casey

but I'd make damned sure he knows that I'm pressuring the entire party to stay pro-choice. I'd make sure his campaign (and later his office) know that he's being watched.

I'd also make a point of giving money to the democratic party rather than directly to his campaign, and I'd let them know why. If enough people do that, they may find a better candidate next time. Money talks.

We accept flaws in our represtatives, because we must, but we don't accept flaws in the party. The party as a whole better stand up for what we want, or we fight to make them stand up for what we want.

I'd vote for Casey, but I would not accept his anti-choice positions within the party.

[I Have A Dream]

23. Thanks for your response, ThomCat. n/t

[TheWraith]

27. Which makes you not a single issue voter. Congratulations.

Politics is the art of compromise, famously described as the slow cutting of a very hard board. The person who can't compromise by definition has no political power. The single issue voters, the Greens, the suicide doves, and the others like them are what pushes power away from the left and crowds the party toward the center, because the left is fickle and can't be relied on for support. What brings power back is the presence of a solid constituency, pushing an agenda.

And as an aside, didn't Casey say something to the effect that his personal beliefs about abortion have no relevance to the policy of the federal government?

[ThomCat]

28. Yes and No.

Those of us who are labeled single issue voters get that label because we demand that an issue is urgent and needs to be pursued by all possible means. You hear one issue at a time so we get accused of being single issue. So in that sense none of us are single issue voters.

But at the same time, those of you who insist that this is the wrong time to do this or address than are willing to sacrifice issues, and people, for political expediency. You're not juggling issues. You're discarding them.

In that sense, if you are a multi-issue voter than I don't want to be one. I'll happily stick with the single-issue voter label.

[TheWraith]

15. How about standing up for a broader progressive agenda?

I'd rather have a candidate I could agree with on eight out of ten things, rather than reject them based on an arbitrary selection of one issue. I'd rather make progress on a number of fronts rather than screw other people because I can't get attention to my pet issue.

[ThomCat]

20. I'm talking about standing up for a broader agenda.

But you have to stand up for everything on that agenda. Even the things your candidate differs on. Make it an issue. Hammer the party on it.

I am a single issue voter because I will not stop fighting for civil rights.
I am a single issue voter becasue I will not stop fighting for women's right to choice.
I am a single issue voter because I will not stop fighting for healthcare.
I am a single issue voter because I will not stop fighting to end the war.
I am a single issue voter because I will not stop fighting the death penalty.
I am a single issue voter because I will not stop fighting for the environment.
I am a single issue voter because I will not stop fighting Corporate power and abuse.

On every one of these issues I will make a stand. I may lose, but I will still make that stand. And after I lose I will still keep fighting.

I will not compromise these issues, or delay them, because that announces that I can be convinced to give them up.

[Caoimhe]

5. Some things are just more important to me than others

And yes all those things you list concern me, but I am heavily influenced by one issue more than the others. I don't think that my uterus is the government's business. Anyone who does, does NOT deserve nor get my vote.. ever. Sorry if that bugs you, but that is how I feel. Pretty sure I'm not alone.

[ulysses]

7. a "single-issue voter" is someone who actually means it

when the shit is coming down. If you're, say, pro-choice, and you want to draw the line at voting for someone who is virulently anti-choice, but may agree with you on some other topics, you get labeled as a "single-issue voter".

I call bullshit.

[Hosnon]

8. Well...I dunno. Just as an example:

If a confessed baby eater and mass murderer ran for office as 100%, no questions asked, pro-choice, would you vote for him?

Yes it is extreme but just to point out that it is a balancing test for everyone and everything, IMO.

Edit: Assuming in our fantasyland that he can run for office.

[ulysses]

10. no, but the irony of your hypothetical

is that my not voting for him would make me, technically, a "single-issue voter".

[Hosnon]

12. Ok...I just picked a random hypothetical. Make one up where the guy

is just horribly extreme on every other issue but is 100% pro-choice.

[ulysses]

16. 1. I doubt that exists in the real world 2. define "every other issue"

I'm not trying to be obtuse. For the sake of the hypothetical, say we have a Dem politician who's pro-choice, but anti-gay, against women's equality outside of repro choice, anti-labor, wants to privatize schools, pro-war, etc. In that case, I'm voting third party or not voting in that race.

But like I say, you'd be hard pressed to find that in the real world. The odds of me agreeing 100% with a candidate on one issue and 0% on every other issue are well beyond low.

[Hosnon]

19. Well I know it doesn't exist in the real world. The point is to illustrate that

we do, in fact, engage in a balancing test.

At least I do...serious Constitutional issues face us today and I want leaders who will restore the balance. If they don't want to raise the minimum wage or aren't gunning for same-sex marriage, I'm ok with that...THIS election.

[ulysses]

21. "THIS election"

Mind if I ask when you won't be ok with that?

[Hosnon]

22. Well hopefully next election. My number one concern right now is restoring

the balance in the Constitution.

The Dems taking the House will do a lot for that in my mind. So, if the Dems win, most likely 2008.

[TheWraith]

24. And if you DISagree on one issue?

"The odds of me agreeing 100% with a candidate on one issue and 0% on every other issue are well beyond low."

Precisely the point. And if you happen to disagree on one issue, the one that you've selected as a "must," then you have the choice between voting for someone who will advance 9/10ths of your agenda, and tacitly supporting the other guy. My Dem candidate for congress supports eliminating the estate tax, which I strongly disagree with. But I agree with him on many issues, which I can't say about the other guy. I firmly believe that everything I support, from progressive taxation to gay marriage, is important and should be addressed. But I'm not willing to go all-or-nothing.

[Lerkfish]

13. not a single issue voter, but I do prioritize what I consider the most

pressing or most important issues. I give more weight to them, and therefore even if a candidate addresses things further down my list, if they are counter to my top priorities, then in aggregate I"m not as thrilled with them.

[HardRocker05]

18. so you wouldn't hold the holocaust against hitler? nt

[TheWraith]

25. Boy, talk about one hell of a strawman. NT.

[Jed Dilligan]

26. Would you vote for a Democrat

who didn't want to end the war, signed environmental deregulation laws, and backed the prez's tax cuts and NCLB?

How many issues would it take for you to change your vote?

Just a hypothetical question.

[ThomCat]

29. It's not an issue of do you vote Dem.

Of course we do.

It's an issue of, do you accept putting issues on the back burner in order to get power?

I'd vote for the ass you describe if he was the least evil viable candidate. But then I'd be hell on wheels trying to limit his influence on the party and get him replaced with someone better next time around.

Yes, we have to accept some candidates we don't like. But we don't have to accept issues we don't like.

Fight like hell for a better candidate when that's an option, and fight like hell for the issues that matter once you're stuck with a half-assed candidate.

Never accept their positions if they're wrong. Never.

[spoony]

31. Excellent post! n/t

[Jed Dilligan]

32. I tend to agree

It's the people who claim this or that DLCer is more than the lesser of two evils that chafe me.

[WinkyDink]

30. I am. My issue is "Republicans are evil, greedy scum."