This subject deserved a separate post.
First of all, go read these articles (please do it):
John Piper’s perspective on single-issue voting:
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1995/1524_OneIssue_Politics_OneIssue_Marriage_and_the_Humane_Society/
A conservative’s (I think) perspective on single-issue voting:
http://solagravitas.wordpress.com/2009/02/07/abortion-racism-and-single-issue-voting/
A liberal’s perspective on single-issue voting:
http://www.boundless.org/features/a0000931.html
——————————————-
I have to say that these articles have well established my view on single-issue voting. Call me narrow-minded, call me ignorant, call me biased, but let me try to explain.
Not to sound like a broken record with these guys, but as Piper put it, being pro-choice disqualifies a man for office in my opinion. At best, it disqualifies my ability to vocally and publicly support him, even if I did vote for him because I thought it was best.
So why does this issue disqualify a man from office? The second article gives a good comparison. We wouldn’t elect a man to office that was obviously and vocally a racist. Why? Because we know that his agenda would be colored (no pun intended) with racism and racist motives. We wouldn’t elect a man to office that vocally and actively supported rape of teenage girls. We would assume his agenda would be colored with moving this horrendous point of view into action. He would never become elected, because that is ludicrous! We wouldn’t elect a man to office that vocally and actively supported the murder of the innocent. And yet we did.
No matter what other ways an actively pro-choice president can eliminate abortions, no matter what other ways I think it can happen, I cannot elect a president that actively supports murder. I’m going to use a loaded word there, I know, because it’s a real word describing the real process of abortions.
Obama has a lot of other good things on his plate. I’m not a party-lover, I’m not a party-hater. I’m not a rabid candidate basher. I’m also not a racist. I was truly excited and overjoyed to have the first black president enter into office, and I know our country was too. But I wasn’t excited to see the most pro-choice activist in all of Congress enter into the White House (see links about record). Why? Because, just like the other issues I theorized above (racism, rape, murder), I know his agenda will be colored with a pro-choice agenda. I can’t stand for that.
—————————————-
Obama’s pro-choice record isn’t a right-wing fabrication:
http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/08/fact_check_obamas_strong_proch.php
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09121706.html
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/election-pr/pr_05042008_obamaendorsement.html
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=3920
http://www.lifenews.com/nat2927.html
http://www.lifenews.com/nat4448.html (biased, but check the facts. they’re right.)
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/04/02/washington_times_wrong_on_obam.php
http://www.barackobama.com/2006/06/28/call_to_renewal_keynote_address.php
———————————————————-
I don’t want to make generalizations about everyone or sound legalistic, and I don’t want to sound old and crotchety and ignorant, but I’m a single issue voter. I don’t have any other options.
-Riley
January 18th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Well said, I think. I think this is the mindset that most conservative [Christians] are in, which explains the outrage and incredulity expressed when a fellow Christian says they support Obama or the like.
And again, I think it relates to the view of government, which I am very soon to post on.
January 18th, 2010 at 8:16 pm
I’m not a single-issue voter, but I don’t think I could vote for someone who pledged to make abortion easier to get. I’m very cynical about the debate. I think Republicans have used the pro-life cause to get themselves elected, and I don’t have much patience for people who play lip-service to being pro-life. It’s telling that the Supreme Court has had a conservative majority for over 20 years and hasn’t made a damn of difference.
Also, being pro-life to me means more than just being anti-abortion. For me it means being anti-torture, pragmatically anti-war (not anti all wars, but the vast majority of them), and being anti-capital punishment. So if I was a single-issue voter on life, it would take the number of candidates I could vote for to just about zero.
January 18th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Which is why you should vote third party. Unfortunately, the state of Texas conveniently left Ralph Nader off the ballot…
January 18th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Hey Riles! (and Trey and Andrew)
I must say, this whole political conversation has been really good for me to be a part of. I’ve definitely gotten some great points of view from all of you to consider that I hadn’t thought about and/or understood before.
These ideas you’ve presented behind single-issue-voting are much more reasonable than the ones I had given to the stereotypical “single-issue” voter. I hadn’t really ever thought of it that way specifically though it seems obvious to me now. I can definitely respect your points, though I will still tend more towards the ideas Andrew talked about in his comment.
January 19th, 2010 at 12:06 am
Which is why you should vote third party. Unfortunately, the state of Texas conveniently left Ralph Nader off the ballot…
If you’re trying to get me to vote for Allan Keyes, I cannot be moved.
January 19th, 2010 at 1:03 am
@Zach: Thanks dude. I just wanted to make my points clearer I guess. I’ve become really enlightened as well through all of this too!
Man, sometimes I just want to go to heaven…..
January 19th, 2010 at 1:20 am
Heaven = Very Yes.
January 19th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
@Andrew: I won’t go that far. That would just be crazy.
But then again, Ralph Nader is more than a little off his rocker too.