Posted on 06/26/2011 6:14:51 AM PDT by Kaslin
In modern politics, the "single issue voter" gets a pretty bad rap. He is seen as unrealistic and intellectually myopic, a disservice to his party and, ultimately, his cause. Politics, after all, is about pragmatism; it is the art of the possible, and no thinking person allows themselves to be guided by their feelings on one single issue.
Of course, this is pure bunk. Anyone with a basic grasp of the ideological identities that characterize modern American society know that there are certain "hinge" issues that tend to serve as electoral litmus tests for many voters. A woman's "right to choose", for example, is the political sacred cow for the Liberal, well-educated urban feminist demographic. For those who identify with the gay community, a candidate's position on same-sex marriage is often of central import. For the Hispanic community it might be issues involving immigration policy, for African Americans, matters of race relations. And of course, there are certain political viewpoints that are assumed by all to be non-negotiable. A candidate who embraced discrimination based on race, sex, or religion, for example, would be roundly condemned by all side of the political spectrum and deemed disqualified from running for office, regardless of their intellectual or political qualifications.
For those Americans whose political identity is guided by their belief in the sanctity of life, a candidate's position on abortion is often the make-or-break question. To this end, the pro-life nonprofit Susan B. Anthony List challenges conservative presidential candidates to sign a pro-life leadership pledge as a means of assuring voters that their commitment to defending the sanctity of life is paramount. Specifically, the pledge addresses four key issues related to presidential leadership:
FIRST, to nominate to the U.S. federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench;??SECOND, to select only pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions, in particular the head of National Institutes of Health, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health & Human Services;
THIRD, to advance pro-life legislation to permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion in all domestic and international spending programs, and defund Planned Parenthood and all other contractors and recipients of federal funds with affiliates that perform or fund abortions;
FOURTH, advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.
Three GOP presidential candidates have, for one reason or another, refused to sign the pledge. They are Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, and Gary Johnson. Mr. Cain has clarified that his reticence has nothing to do with ideological opposition and everything to do with his understanding of checks and balances. Johnson has identified himself as pro-choice, so no surprise there. But then there is Governor Romney. As he is the presumed favorite, pro-life voters have a lot to consider.
And this is where the "single-issue" voter stigma comes into play. Republican pundits eager to set aside social issues in favor of economic matters will dismiss the kerfuffle over the pro-life pledge as an unnecessary and divisive distraction, and Liberal groups will cite the controversy as the latest example of the GOP's slide into extremism.
In reality, there are very serious, very legitimate reasons for pro-life conservatives to question the leadership suitability of a candidate who is not willing to commit to Susan B. Anthony List's pledge. Foremost, a candidate's easy dismissal of pro-life matters for reasons of pragmatism or nuance, or whatever the reason, calls into question his fundamental belief about the sanctity of life. Life is either sacred or it's not. Life either begins at conception and should merit the full protection of the law as such, or it doesn't and shouldn't. Any refusal to elevate the importance of right-to-life issues by necessity trivializes them.
Of equal importance are the constitutional implications of a candidate's view of the abortion issue. It is the general conclusion of those who adhere to a strict constructionist view of the Constitution that Roe v. Wade represents the most egregious example of judicial activism in American history. It was a case of pure judicial fiat, in which "emanations" and "penumbras" were fabricated and employed in order to prop up a politically motivated, fallacious decree. The implied "right to privacy" led to a perceived "right to choose," which then led down the fatal path to a "right to kill."
Thoughtful conservatives will likely be uncomfortable with a presidential nominee that subscribes to such nonsense. Governor Romney's refusal to sign the pro-life pledge may be rooted in some ill-conceived form of pragmatism, but it comes at the expense of principle. It may also come at the expense of his nomination.
“Party over principles” is going to eat the Republican Party alive IMO.
Party over principles is a red herring. That is not the question. The article adds to the confusion by confusing single issue voters with litmus test voters, and the two concepts are different, something apparently lost in this rather poorly structured article.
The notion of candidates being able to articulate their own positions versus signing pledges designed to bring attention to specific organizations is another idea lost by this piece.
Many single issue voters are intellectually and politically incoherent and inconsistent overall. I think this article does nothing to clear this up.
You don't understand, it's perfectly OK for the RINO party to stab you and your children in the back, those exclusive Country Club slots and ruling class A list parties are too important to let go for your benefit.
How dare you fail to take a knee and proffer a wad of cash when summoned?
That is not the question.
Then in your mind what is the question?
“....Could you explain why you believe it’s a red herring?”
Yes, because that assumes that anyone who rejects single issue advocacy is doing so out of “party” loyalty. Saying “party over principle” is a way to attempt to cheapen what are very legitimate reasons to be skeptical of single issue folks. Another “red herring” is the notion of putting “money over morality.”
To fully answer this might require a full fledged article, which I might just do in fact. But pro life conservatives often clash around the edges with single issue pro lifers. And it has nothing to do with one side being morally or ethically superior. Sometimes, even in the Bible, practicality IS the high road. Sometimes it is the low road, but my point is, it is neither necessarily - but to term it “party versus principle” is to assume it is.
“....Could you explain why you believe it’s a red herring?”
Yes, because that assumes that anyone who rejects single issue advocacy is doing so out of “party” loyalty. Saying “party over principle” is a way to attempt to cheapen what are very legitimate reasons to be skeptical of single issue folks. Another “red herring” is the notion of putting “money over morality.”
To fully answer this might require a full fledged article, which I might just do in fact. But pro life conservatives often clash around the edges with single issue pro lifers. And it has nothing to do with one side being morally or ethically superior. Sometimes, even in the Bible, practicality IS the high road. Sometimes it is the low road, but my point is, it is neither necessarily - but to term it “party versus principle” is to assume it is.
And eventually you have to look at yourself in the mirror and realize that you have no core principles any longer as you've abandoned them over time for nothing more than a short term political victory.
I simply can't sell my birthright (eventually all of my core principles) for a mess of pottage (short term political victory) else I damn my own soul.
Thanks for your thoughts, and this is my take: you, and people like you, are not the subject of the author’s point. Your point is much more cogent than the authors. And you don’t seem like a blinder on straight ahead single issue voter. Lot of folks on the right internet are. I think this author is, and he was using tortured logic and a straw man argument to try and defend it and I think he failed.
My comments were directed at that mindset.
Several years ago, James R. Evans published a list of questions which are helpful in examining current legislation and/or ideas to determine how closely the align with the founding principle of individual liberty. Perhaps that listing might be helpful here:
"1. Does this legislation or idea increase, or decrease, individual freedom and creativity?
"2. Does this legislation or idea increase, or decrease, the power of some citizens over other citizens?
"3. Does this legislation or idea recognize that the persons who will exercise the power are themselves imperfect human beings?
"4. Does this legislation or idea recognize that government is incapable of creating wealth?
"5. Does this legislation or idea authorize taking from some what belongs to them, and giving it to others to whom it does not belong?
If 'thou shalt not steal' is a valid commandment, can we assume that it is meant to apply only to individuals and not to government (which is made up of individuals), even if those persons in power pass laws which sanction such redistribution of the wealth of others?'
"6. Does this legislation or idea encourage, or discourage, the very highest level of morality and responsibility from the individual?
. . .when government makes actions 'legal' by some citizens at the expense of other citizens, the result may be behavior which would not be considered possible by individuals acting alone.
"7. Does this legislation or idea propose that the 'government' do something which the individual cannot do without committing a crime?"**
**7 principles drawn from James R. Evans book, "America's Choice," and reprinted in a Stedman Corporation (Asheboro, NC) booklet entitled "I'm Only One, What Can I Do?"
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."
Great list and I agree 100%. I”ll have to look up that booklet and Evans.
Perhaps you should have asked me what I meant by the expression before you so brusquely and cavalierly brushed my comment aside.
Thanks for your input. It tells me a great deal about you.
>> Well that’s all fine and dandy. What I want to know is if you’re now going to retract your earlier statement about party over principles being a red herring since you seem to more fully understand what I meant. <<
Sorry you took offense, and I have no qualms with your philosophy.
HOWEVER - your statement plus the article does not accurately reflect your philosophy, so I still have a qualm with YOUR STATEMENT as it reflects the point of the article — as your statement implicitly agrees with the article and I disagree with much of the article.
I doubt it does.
Wicked, immoral, unconstitutional legislation. The fact that the "pro-life" industry is pushing this nonsense is vivid proof (again) of their complete abandonment of principle. Any candidate who signs off on it is utterly ignorant or uncaring of the most important cornerstone principles of our republic.
A review of the Evans book can be found at http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/book-review-americas-choice-twilights-last-gleaming-or-dawns-early-light-by-james-r-evans/
Review by Dr. Opits at The Freeman.
The little booklet in which Evans’ list appeared was circulated by the thousands back in the 80’s by Stedman Corporation’s Government Affairs & Free Enterprise Education Program, a company whose owner dedicated many years of his life to warning fellow business leaders about expanding government and loss of liberty. You may be interested in visiting a current web site which offers a 292-page volume originally published in the Constitution’s Bicentennial Year (1987) and now available again, entitled, “Our Ageless Constitution.” It is a treasury of the Founders’ principles in their own words, and constitutional scholars trace how We departed from those ideas in the 200 years between 1787 and 1987.
Evans’ work was entitled: “America’s Choice: twilight’s last gleaming or dawn’s early light.” A google search indicated some copies may be out there somewhere.
Thanks.
loveliberty2
Politics, after all, is about pragmatism; it is the art of the possible, and no thinking person allows themselves to be guided by their feelings on one single issue.
I read it as...Don't get hung up on the small stuff. Just give up your principles and simply vote for the "viable" candidate for the Party's gain because that's the pragmatic thing to do, even though it goes against your gut feeling that they're wrong in what they believe.
So please accept my apologies as well.
Ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.