Pages

Thursday, October 11, 2007

"Single-issue voters"

At the moment, conservatives are divided on which horse to back in the nomination process. On the one hand are conservatives who, not unreasonably, regard Hillary as the worst-case scenario, and so they view Rudy or Romney or McCain as the lesser of two evils—on the assumption that one of these three is more electable than a more clearcut conservative like Huckabee or Ron Paul. Anything is preferable to Hillary.

On the other hand are conservatives who think this would be a case of destroying the village to save the village. This, in turn, embroils us in the perennial issue of “single-issue voters,” which is used as a pejorative label.

Here I want to make a couple of observations:

i) Is there something wrong with being a “single-issue voter”? What does that mean, exactly?

As a rule, prolifers are social conservatives. They aren’t just conservative about abortion (there are exceptions, but that’s pretty rare). It’s misleading to describe them as single-issue voters, as if that’s all they care about.

Rather, I think the position of many prolifers is consciously or unconsciously more broad-based.

a) For one thing, proabortionists are ordinarily social liberals. They aren’t just liberal on abortion. Rather, their views of abortion are symptomatic of their social views generally.

So I suspect many prolifers don’t feel that you need to go beyond this “single issue” in judging a candidate, since his position on abortion is a hendiadys for his social values generally.

Many prolifers may indeed regard abortion as an all-important issue. But, as a practical matter, it rarely comes down to abortion as the only decisive issue, since any candidate who supports abortion on demand will almost invariably support all of the other socially liberal positions as well.

Since they’ve never been giving the option of voting for a candidate who’s wrong on abortion, but right about everything else, it’s pretty meaningless to accuse them of being myopic or obsessive, for it’s not as if they’ve ever had the occasion to vote for a candidate who’s wrong on their “single issue,” but right about everything else they value.

A prolifer may well regard a number of other social issues as equally important. But because a proabortionists is almost bound to be equally bad on equally important social issues, the prolifer has no incentive to go beyond his “single issue.” It’s a defining issue on both sides of the political spectrum. It’s a way in which you position yourself along the political spectrum, which takes in all the other rightwing or leftwing positions.

b) For another thing, the fact that they’re stubborn and single-minded about abortion doesn’t mean that’s the only thing they care about. But I suspect many of them draw the line with abortion on the grounds that we’re not in a position to move beyond abortion until we succeeded in achieve our objectives on abortion.

If Roe v. Wade were overturned, and they had done as much as they could do to restrict abortion on a state-by-state basis (mainly in red states), they would be happy to turn their priorities to another issue. They have a long list of social issues they care about.

But what’s the point of abandoning a bridge that’s only halfway across the river to begin building another bridge upstream, only to abandon that project before it’s complete in order to begin building yet another bridge downstream? They feel they’ve made some progress on the issue of abortion, and they don’t want to scuttle the project before it’s finished. That’s a reasonable position.

c) Apropos (a), the critics of “single-issue voters” act as if the only problem with Rudy is that he’s liberal on abortion. To hear them talk, you’d think that he has the same social views as Abraham Kuyper apart from his pesky, anomalous support for abortion. But his position on abortion is hardly a fluke.

I don’t know if this is misrepresentation in part because the media simple-mindedly highlights his views on abortion while turning a blind-eye to his other equally liberal positions on personal and social ethics. But Rudy is a generic social liberal inasmuch as his views on abortion are part and parcel of a liberal package-deal on social values.

Now, you may still think that Rudy would be better than Hillary, but let’s honestly evaluate what he brings to the table instead of pretending that this all comes down to the single issue of abortion, as if that’s the only position on which Rudy takes a hard left turn.

ii) Conservative supporters of Rudy have a fallback argument. Yes, he’s personally liberal in his social values, but he will nominate conservative judicial candidates.

Well, that’s possible, but is it plausible? Rudy has been in politics for many years now. Does he have any track-record of opposing judicial activism? Or did he suddenly discover the virtues of Robert Bork after he decided to run for president?

And since we know he’s a social liberal, how sincere are his assurances? Isn’t this like George Bush on border control? Since his sympathies lie elsewhere, we get these halfhearted speeches and token gestures, but it’s business as usual. He always reverts to type.

How many times have we been down this road? I don’t regard gullibility as an intellectual virtue. Ironically, the “single-issue voter” is both an ideologue and a cynic. The conservative supporters of Rudy (or Romney) think the “single-issue voter” is being unrealistic. But the “single-issue voter” thinks the conservative supporters of Rudy (or Romney) are being unrealistic by taking their opportunistic campaign promises at face-value. They don’t oppose a RINO just because they’re ideological purists, but because they are also too jaded and worldly-wise to trust a RINO in sheep’s clothing.

Some have suggested that Rudy would keep his word to get reelected. But why would Rudy need to keep his word to get reelected? He doesn’t necessarily need the same voting block to be reelected as it took to get elected in the first place. Depending on how a president plays his cards, he can reconfigure his constituency in office. Look at how Ah-nuld has reinvented himself.

Now, we can still debate the odds of whether Rudy would be as bad as Hillary. One can argue that Hillary’s badness is a sure thing.

My immediate point is that I find conservative supporters of Rudy resorting to a combination of caricature and credulity. If they’re really going to take the pragmatic, tough-minded approach, Realpolitik approach, then they should be a bit more candid.

12 comments:

  1. So far, I like Huckabee. I am baffled as to why he hasn't garnered more conservative support. Am I missing something? Are people afraid that he is unelectable b/c he wants to do away with the IRS? What's the deal here?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Personally, I've used the term "single-issue voters" before, and never thought of it as a pejorative.

    I bet I've unintentionally offended a lot of people!

    With apologies to them, if any are reading,

    -Turretinfan

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'd like to ask an off-topic question if you will.

    I get your point. Empiricism leads to skepticism and materialism has many problems considering minds, numbers and universals. So we are compelled to accept Platonism and Cartesianism. That's fine.

    But I can still be an atheist and a Platonist, for example like Schopenhauer. Can't I?

    Even if I have to accept theism, that doesn't mean I have to accept any organized religion do I? I can accept the God of philosophers. I can subscribe to natural theology. Can't I?

    ReplyDelete
  4. As a Christian, my "single issue" has to do with Romans 13. Basically, I have to consider whether or not the candidate is subject to the governing authorities of this nation.

    And who are the governing authorities? We, the people, as spelled out in writings of the Founding Fathers. The Declaration of Independence explains exactly how and why this country was founded, and every politician and federal bureaucrat should be subject to the Constitution of these United States.

    In my humble opinion, any politician who strays from that principle is unworthy to serve. Given the current field of candidates, that rules out all but one: Ron Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  5. MIKE SAID:

    “But I can still be an atheist and a Platonist, for example like Schopenhauer. Can't I?”

    Platonism is not an adequate position. It points out some problems with empiricism, and it’s definitely on to something as far as abstract objects. But it’ lacks the metaphysical resources to properly ground abstract objects. You have these free-floating properties absent a property-bearer. They aren’t mental and they aren’t material. So what are they? And how are they accessible to the human mind?

    The tradition of universals as divine ideas—a la Augustine—salvages what is good in Platonism while laying a firmer foundation.

    “Even if I have to accept theism, that doesn't mean I have to accept any organized religion do I? I can accept the God of philosophers. I can subscribe to natural theology. Can't I?”

    Yes, you can be a theistic minimalist, but what’s the point? Is Christianity true or false? That’s the question you need to deal with.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Brad,

    The problem with Huckabee is that he's a neoconservative who is big government. The Cato Institute gave him a "D" overall when it came to being a fiscal conservative (an 'F' in 2006).
    He may have lowered taxes "94 times" but what is the net effect of his lowering some taxes with the increase in others. In 2007, Arkansas may have had a surplus, but he increased spending 65.3% from 1996-2006. He's been called the "biggest taxer and spender in Arkansas history". Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, even went so far as to call Huckabee a "serial tax increaser".

    Unfortunately, he thought he knew better than the courts when he released a convicted rapist, who, after release, went on to rape and murder a woman in Missouri.

    His assertions on the 'FairTax' are a bit unbelievable as well (I know the assertions come from Boortz and other ill-informed people). For instance, he won't get rid of the IRS, he will change the name of it. You can't have a national sales tax without a national agency to collect the tax (from the states or from the people).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dear Steve,

    Thank you for your kind response. I'd like to ask a further question please.

    "Is Christianity true or false?" Suppose that I accept a minimalist theism. Would you then argue for Christianity through historical arguments or through philosophical arguments from that point on?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mike said...
    Dear Steve,

    Thank you for your kind response. I'd like to ask a further question please.

    "Is Christianity true or false?" Suppose that I accept a minimalist theism. Would you then argue for Christianity through historical arguments or through philosophical arguments from that point on?

    *************************************

    Depends on the individual. Different types of evidence appeal to different people. Some folks are more impressed with historical evidence, others with philosophical argumentation.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dear Steve,

    But you would admit that there is no philosophical proof from minimal theism to Christianity, only historical arguments, right?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mike said...
    Dear Steve,

    But you would admit that there is no philosophical proof from minimal theism to Christianity, only historical arguments, right?

    ****************************

    I think it's possible to mount a transcendental argument for Christian theism.

    ReplyDelete
  11. For me, the abortion issue comes down to this: if a candidate thinks abortion is acceptable, he thinks murder is an acceptable solution to life's many problems. He may not like when born children or adults are murdered, but fundamentally, he does not find the deliberate destruction of innocent human life to be wrong. Someone who believes that is not fit to govern, at the very least.

    I once attended a talk being given by the area Planned Parenthood director. He spoke at length about his experiences getting to know the pastor of a Baptist church across the street from an abortion clinic. The point was that even though the two strongly disagreed about abortion, the Baptist pastor was "tolerant" and didn't impose his "religious" views on him, and other religious folks who oppose abortion should learn a lesson from this pastor.

    During the Q&A afterword, I asked if the speaker (a Jew) thought that the Holocaust was a murderous event that decent people should have fought against. Of course he agreed. I explained then that I saw abortion as a murderous act. I said that I assumed everyone in the room would think that murder is wrong, and would fight against it (at which point a woman on the other side of the room commented that I should speak for myself!). And so I asked him, given that I think abortion is a murderous act, and murder should be fought against, why should I not seek to "impose" this view on society?

    After some wheedling, he never did answer the question. A consummate politician!

    ReplyDelete
  12. My problem with single issue voters isn't really the one you describe. If someone holds an issue as dear to them, and on principle cannot support any candidate who opposes that view, I can respect that.

    What I find dangerous about many single issue voters (especially on this topic) is the tendency to be willing to sacrifice EVERYTHING else for even the smallest assurances.

    As an example, the ease with which they believe Romney's 'road to Washington' conversion to pro-life. It really doesn't matter how bad a candidate is in any other way, if he supports the pro-life movement, even if just in words, they'll buy in.

    ReplyDelete