Arguments Against Single-Issue Voting Lack Nuance, Honesty, and Guts
October 29, 2004
Recently we have seen that among supposed religious conservatives, conscientious abstentions from voting are acceptable. Ignorance and apathy are not acceptable reasons for not voting, however, but to my mind, behind their illusions of integrity, the motives of the “conscientious abstainers” belong in this class too–unless they have sufficient numbers to cause a kind of system crash and are engaging in an effectual form of civil protest. But here is the new, worst electoral vice: “single-issue voting!”Here’s a bit of news: there are no “single-issue voters,” except for all the people voting for Kerry because he is not Bush and vice versa.
I am only half-joking; it seems there is more of this “anyone but Bush” sentiment among Democrats, where many really do see no reasonable or ethical choice except Kerry, and, with a zeal reserved for all gnostic ideologues, have been working hard to make sure we don’t have more choices on our ballots. The Democrats, it seems, know when democracy must be circumvented for their own good. But I presume that even these dogmatists have, on some level, unarticulated thoughts of greater nuance than they are willing or able to verbalize; they are not true single-issue voters
Truly, the single-issue voter (SIV) is not a reality; like the media-constructed “fundamentalist,” he is an unexamined bug-bear of overly sensitive imaginations. E.g., “Pat Robertson, Dark Lord of the SIV, strode forth, resplendent in his black cape, and issued his fatwa on the 700 Club…”
In a recent pontification from Terry Mattingly at the GetReligion blog we read about the great dangers of this SIV:
It’s time to start reminding people that it is immature, or even bad theology, to go into the voting booth and pull that lever based on one or two religious issues, such as abortion. It’s time for religious conservatives to be more mature and nuanced.Mattingly never gets around to explaining why it’s immature or bad theology to be a single-issue voter, but his point is clear: it’s wrong for Christians to oppose abortion so much that it overrides all other considerations. Nevermind that nobody really thinks this way–“That darn George Bush is hell on everything I care about except abortion. Guess I gotta vote fer ‘im!”
What Mattingly is really implying is that abortion is properly understood as one issue among many issues of equal, greater, or relatively great significance, and apparently it’s OK in his book for Christians to vote for people who are committed to the “pro-choice” cause. In this view, you’re an idiot and a bad Christian if you think voting for Kerry is like voting for Hitler because his anti-semitism is just one issue among the many that you ought to consider. It’s not part of a deeply pathological turning of the mind and soul that will invariably manifest itself in other “issues.” Of course, if Kerry were known to be an anti-semite, he wouldn’t even be running. But support for infanticide, well, that’s just one subjective issue among many. Practice, “discernment,” good Evangelicals, and do us proud.
I’ll concede this much: there are many other issues than abortion-related issues, and Kerry is bad, untrustworthy or impossibly vague on all of them. (By contrast, Bush is just bad, untrustworthy, vague and ignorant on most of them.)
This point–that Kerry really isn’t where we want to go–seems subtly suggested in a recent CT editorial that Mattingly approvingly cites. One wonders how the editors think their readers will come up with anyone but Bush as the best choice in light of the issues they list: “terrorism, economic justice, church-state relations, gay marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, and so on.” The CT editors, unlike Mattingly, are very careful not to suggest an “all choices this season are OK for Christians” stance. The subtext is this: “Bush is the man, of course, but don’t talk about abortion as your big issue because it makes us look like dummies! Vote for Bush–with intelligence and nuance!”
Other problems emerge as well:
“While sanctity-of-life issues will always be of vital interest to Christians, today’s context demands that believers engage a broad spectrum of issues.”
Nothing of the sort is demanded of any voter; CT just wants its readership to shave and walk upright. “Stop acting like religious sectarians!”
We also recognize that many Americans view abortion as sometimes the lesser of two evils, and a complete ban is politically impossible right now.”
Now we’re suddenly talking about a complete federal ban on abortions, not a subset of the “abortion issue,” like partial birth abortion. Now if a single issue has many subsets, is it really a single issue? This sounds a lot like “nuance.”
“As President Bush has said, to make abortion nonexistent, we first need to build a culture of life.”
Does this mean that voting for candidates and parties that say infanticide is a necessary and vital tool for the socioeconomic enfranchisement of women and ethnic minorities makes sense because you agree – maybe not on all the means but at least the same ends – regarding the good of “social justice?” Or would it make more sense to build a culture of life by electing leaders who have their minds and hearts (or mere political horse-sense) approximately correct on fundamental issues of life, human dignity, children and the family – and then try to build on that foundation to deal with larger societal structures, problems, and “issues?”
By thinking in terms of single issues, we marginalize ourselves, whether we are Republicans or Democrats, pro-life or pro-choice.
Why not ask why this marginalization happens, if it really matters, and what else might be done about it? Is CT recommending a strategic compromise or a compromising strategy induced by a cultural mainstream that is dogmatically pro-choice? When was the last time you heard Democrats worrying about being marginalized by the lack of nuance in their monomaniacally pro-abortion camp?
A better approach is to think of dominant issues. … Dominant-issue politics shows greater promise in addressing our society amid all the pressing issues our society faces, including terrorism, economic justice, church-state relations, gay marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, and so on.
So abortion laws aren’t a dominant issue? Do the Democrats know that? Who gets to define the “dominant issues?”
Here (and with Mattingly’s article), I suspect we are seeing the Ned Flanders side of the slightly learned Evangelical mind that is so worried about keeping up appearances. Old Ned just can’t bear being considered ignorant and fundamentalistic in the cultural mainstream by which he so desperately wishes to be accepted. (Maybe this is being harsh on Ned; he’s not that wishy-washy.)
In sum, the idea of “single-issue voting” is a fallacy invented by the religion-averse media to tar “Fundamentalists” (AKA “the religious right”), and now they have CT and Mattingly going right along with them. Not only that, but here are Christians talking about “issues” as if they are discrete categories, more or less equal in weight.
Abortion, properly understood by pagans and religionists alike, pertains to end of life “issues,” like euthanasia; genetic meddling on all kinds of life; the proper limits of the state; economic and “social” justice–and more. How we regard and treat life, especially human life, and the health of the family (the fundamental ordering structure of society) is a basic, foundational political concern that rightly precedes all others. One can vote on it as a “single-issue” or “litmus test” because it impacts all other “issues” most profoundly, and a person’s views on “abortion” always tell you a great deal about that person and what you might expect from them.
Addenda: The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church has been released:
The newspaper said topics include ecology, the common good, human rights, family, work, women in society, the economy, the international community and indigenous peoples.
While the compendium supports the right of a nation to defend itself from attack, La Repubblica said it also says a “preventive war, unleashed without evident proof that an act of aggression is about to be launched, raises serious moral and juridical questions.”
The statement reflects questions and criticism raised by Pope John Paul II and Vatican officials over U.S. President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq.
Pope John Paul asked the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace to write the compendium, which frequently has been referred to as a catechism of Catholic social teaching.
In a 1999 meeting with council members, the pope said the “compendium or approved synthesis of church social doctrine” would help Catholics learn what the church teaches on social issues and see how important the teaching is.
In 2000, Bishop Giampaolo Crepaldi, secretary of the justice and peace council, said the book would have three main sections: a presentation of the theological and anthropological underpinnings of the church’s social teaching; an examination of basic themes and concrete social issues; and the pastoral and practical consequences of Catholic social teaching, especially for lay people and Catholics working in politics, business and the economy.
(“Vatican’s social catechism touches on war, working women, environment,” by Cindy Wooden, Catholic News Service 10/21/04)
This is Arguments Against Single-Issue Voting Lack Nuance, Honesty, and Guts in The Japery, a part of The New Pantagruel. Previously: The Manichaean Mind of Mark Noll and Richard John Neuhaus | Next: Sympathizing with Planned Parenthood Because We Hate Pregnancy Too | TrackBack (7) | Comments (0)
Trackback Pings:
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Arguments Against Single-Issue Voting Lack Nuance, Honesty, and Guts:
» Editorial Preface to An Election Dialogue from 1.4
On election eve, “discerning” Christians are awash with unsolicited advice and testimonies on the subject of voting. A growing chorus of Christian notables, now including Mark Noll, Alisdair MacIntyre, and Paul Griffiths, find things so decidedly unsat… [Read More]
Tracked on October 30, 2004 08:27 AM
» An Election Dialogue from 1.4
The following dialogue took place by email in October 2004 between four of The New Pantagruel’s contributing editors: Eugene McCarraher, Assistant Professor of Humanities and History at Villanova Uni… [Read More]
Tracked on October 30, 2004 08:08 PM
» An Election Dialogue from 1.3
On election eve, “discerning” Christians are awash with unsolicited advice and testimonies on the subject of voting. A growing chorus of Christian notables, now including Mark Noll, Alisdair MacIntyre, and Paul Griffiths, find things so decidedly unsat… [Read More]
Tracked on October 30, 2004 09:58 PM
» First Impressions • Feedback for Fr. Jape from 1.4
The following messages were recieved from readers immediately following the coverage that tNP received in The New York Times (July 17, 2004: 1A) this summer. Thank you, thank you, thank you for finally arriving. Tami Hughes LOC??? It’s the end… [Read More]
Tracked on November 1, 2004 10:14 PM
» Not Voting from 1.4
The follow letters were received in reponse to Fr. Gassalasca Jape, S.J.’s irregular column, “The Japery.” On Not Voting Fr. Jape, I greatly enjoyed today’s entry. [Arguments Against Single-Issue Voting Lack Nuance, Honesty, and Guts 10/29] This parag… [Read More]
Tracked on August 29, 2005 12:02 AM
» A Dialogue on the Presidential Election from 1.3
On election eve, “discerning” Christians are awash with unsolicited advice and testimonies on the subject of voting. A growing chorus of Christian notables, now including Mark Noll, Alisdair MacIntyre, and Paul Griffiths, find things so decidedly unsat… [Read More]
Tracked on September 8, 2005 06:22 AM
» Will GOP Unity Hold? from The Japery
RJN is convinced or would really like us all to believe with him that religious conservatives in the GOP will stay there unless the almost unthinkable happens: a serious pro-life Democrat alternative becomes available. In RJN’s calculation, the GOP is… [Read More]
Tracked on March 14, 2006 06:54 PM