I got into a VERY pious discussion with a person when I stated that Tort and Medical Malpractice reform were at the top of my “Political Wish List”…
They accused me of being very “one-sided” and that I should be more open to a tickets (or Politicians)“complete message”.
Maybe I’m off here…but from what I see, most voters are really very “one issue” oriented (if they care to Vote at all…the majority of potential Voters in the U.S. don’t vote) whether it is abortion, Prayer in School or Veganism.
Hmm, interesting question. I’d guess that you can certainly have your own priorities.
Here’s a question (and I don’t intend any right or left bias, this is just something a lot of people feel strongly about)…
What if one candidate promised to keep the nation at war while another promised to achieve a worthwhile peace?
I mean, is there only one issue on the planet that is important to you? Can you think of no other issues that matter (to you) with respect to the future or direction of the country?
Anyway, I’m not intending to be critical or judgemental, so if you feel there is no bigger issue, then so be it, you can certainly have your opinion.
Life has MUCH bigger issues than what Lawyer’s and Litiginous people do…
But those “bigger” issues (for me) are not ones that any Politician will “solve”…they are those “internal” struggles…struggles of Faith…Love of family, etc.
Also…any Politician that promises “Eternal Peace” and Strawberry Fields Forever is either:
VERY ignorant of The History of Man and of the World we Live in AND/OR
“I mean, is there only one issue on the planet that is important to you?”
“Can you think of no other issues that matter (to you) with respect to the future or direction of the country?”
I answered them both…
Yes…a Strong National defense is important…but if we don’t do the things that “clean up our own house”…and begin to take on a lot more personal responsibilty…we will only get weaker…
Vroom-FWIW- I think that the candidate promising war would tend to be the more honest of the two, ceteris paribus. Voters like to think that a war is going to end sometime very soon, unless the threat is immediate and overwhelming obvious. I also think he’s more politically suicidal too.
As for the ‘dove,’ it all depends on the word ‘worthwhile.’ In reality, that can mean cut and run after a decent interval, which an opponent may very well adjust his behavior to. That can complicate things in a big hurry.
As for the topic, I think there a lot of voters who are one issue voters. I have several liberal-minded female friends who always vote based on pro-choice orthodoxy with little regard to the candidate’s other ideas. I personally think this is a bad way to go, but it’s not that unusual. Hell, at least they are voting, which is more than I can say about half of the electorate.
I think it unwise to do that, though. For example, the pro-choice ladies I mentioned above will vote for Kerry - but realistically what impact will Kerry have on the national debate on abortion? If a Supreme Court justice retires, he has a chance to install a pro-Roe judge in his/her place, but that’s a longshot with a Republican Congress. Fact is, a President has many powers, but in terms of moving the abortion argument one way or another, he’s just largely symbolic.
Too many important issues to consider - will the candidate continue to prosecute the war on terror? Will the candidate favor protectionism? These are issues that a President can have a much more direct impact on.
Vroom,
“What if one candidate promised to keep the nation at war while another promised to achieve a worthwhile peace?”
Depends on the point of the war. No modern civilized nation would ever be at war for the sake of it. War should always be in search of peace.
But I echo the warning - beware those promising utopian solutions. Peace is to be managed, never achieved. We’ll never reach the ‘end of history’.
Anyone who says they believe in ‘world peace’ is kidding themselves.
I think that someone who TRULY is a single-issue voter is kind of kooky. However, I would posit that very, very few people are actually single-issue voters; rather, they are voters who have one issue that is very important, in a background of voting for one of two major parties who differ from each other only minimally on the majority of issues.
Think about it – the majority of voters who consider themselves single-issue voters on abortion (probably the single issue that has the greatest majority of “single-issue voters” associated with it) would not vote for the American Nazi Party candidate if faced with a Democrat and Republican candidate who were against their chosen abortion position but an American Nazi Party candidate who agreed with them on the issue of abortion.
Given that, I think it’s perfectly fine to choose between the two major parties based on the issue you think is a “deal breaker.”
Slightly off topic: Another thing that is perfectly fine and logical is to be a party-line voter based on which party reflects you beliefs on most issues in its platform. Unless you have a really strong preference for a certain individual, voting to put a party in power in Congress or in the Presidency is a vote to have the major planks of the platform advanced – even if not by the particular candidate for whom you are voting. Presidents appoint agency heads and judges who will reflect more the party ideology than his individual beliefs (to the extent they vary from the party ideology); similarly, voting to put a party in power in Congress is a vote to put that party in charge of committees that will serve to vet legislation according to the party platform to a much greater extent than any individual congressman could effect an individual agenda.
BB is right (and it stands true for me)…Tort reform and medical malpractice reform are not the ONLY issues I’m concerned about…but the placing of a Personal Injury Lawyer on the ticket was sort of a “deal breaker” for me.
One thing that I try NOT to do is vote AGAINST somebody as opposed to voting FOR someome else.
I think that in this case, I will probably end up doing the former…
Once again, I think this has to be viewed in terms of the context of our two-dominant-party system. Given there is basically an “either/or” choice, I think it’s perfectly logical to vote against the candidate you think is worse (or against the party that has a platform with which you disagree).
As an aside, I think this explains why most people say they view negative ads as distasteful, yet negative ads are shown to be the most successful type of ad. I think this would be different if we had a three-party system (although I don’t really want that for other reasons).
