In Defense of Single-Issue Voting

A few hours ago, I was eating with some friends in a restaurant and we were talking about the upcoming election. One of them mentioned that a professor from a recent panel (about same-sex marriage) had recommended that no one vote against Bush solely because of this one issue, and some (if not all) of them agreed with this.

I'm sorry, but I believe that it is more than reasonable to vote against Bush because of this one issue. Even if I were otherwise a total right-winger...

Complete commentary here

it's an issue based on a progressive agenda. As are many so-called single issues. I don't think you would find someone who was otherwise conservative in favor of same-sex marriage.

I don't think you would find someone who was otherwise conservative in favor of same-sex marriage.
Actually, you would. They are called "Log Cabin Republicans" ;)

but a single issue should not be what decides your vote.

That's what is leading to people not liking Kerry just because he voted for IWR or because he wont come out as strong as they would like on one single issue.

It's making the perfect the enemy of the good.

depends upon the issue. After all, let's say someone runs for president and he is the politician of your dreams....except for the fact that he supports the eradication of a racial minority. Wouldn't that single issue prevent you from voting for him?

Furthermore, when that "single issue" is my community, you better believe it will be the deciding factor.

I think I could vote against Hitler based on the holocaust issue. It depends on what the issue is and how serious the impact is.

I live among a bunch of single issue voters, but they all get frantic about baby killing. It is refreshing to hear it from the other side.

It could be really dumb to vote for him.

"While Kerry, an opponent of same-sex marriage (but supporter of civil unions), is certainly not the most gay-friendly politician out there"

I just have to wonder whether people are living under a rock. John Kerry is the one who first started introducing glbt equal rights legislation back in the 80's. There would be no issue of gay marriage today if he, and people like him, hadn't led the way. He's probably going to lose alot of votes in states like Oregon, with gay marriage a political hot button, because of his strong history of supporting gay rights. And he's "not the most gay-friendly politician"? Not many have been more gay friendly. I don't get it.

Group-think - It's a bad thing.

I hope you were able to get over the shock and stand up to it. That's usually my problem when my friends say something so absolutely idiotic. I just don't tend to hang out with sheeple so it confounds me every time it happens.

to resist groupthink

Is seeing not one damned Republican in office anywhere in our country; that determines my vote in all races....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

It's called The Twilight of Equality : Neoliberalism, Cultural Politics, and the Attack on Democracy by Lisa Duggan

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807079448/qid=1083798932/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/103-3140896-0180604?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

But how much civil liberty should gayrebel83 surrender before civil liberty becomes the prime factor in voting?

If anyone thinks the route to more civil liberties EVER runs through electing Al Damato over Chuck Schumer, then they're very very very confused.

(Then the book suggests that the only reason the HRC did this is because they've become very tight with some big corporations which underwrite their activities, suggesting that they don't even really belive Damato was the route to more civil liberties.)

It always seems like the case against "single issue voting" is really a covert way of saying "your issue just isn't that important to me". Everyone can be pushed too far, and there's a kind of arrogance in someone saying he has the moral high ground when it's someone else's buttons that are being pushed.

..70s has been the way the right has broken up once effective coalitions on the left.

We used to realize that all left movements were about the same thing: flowing power down and out.

The right realized that we were getting a little too organized, so they started to divide a conquer with single issue groups.

Nice to see people here understand their game.

Really, if you're at all confused about this issue, read Duggan's book.

Are you sure you don't have it backwards? You seem make the assumption that coalition voting foundered for some other reason than that it was not meeting the needs of coalition members.

That's an extraordinary presumption. Shut up and get in line -- sad to see people here understand their game.

and I wouldn't be surprised if the argument for single issue voting is driven by the fact that Duggan's book is out there pointing out how dumb it is to be a single issue voter, when that single issue means that you vote against politicians who are trying to flow political, cultural and economic power down to the masses rather than up increasing steep and narrow power pyramid.

In other words, it doesn't serve ANY liberal interest groups interests to vote for Al Damato, no matter what the HRC tries to convince its members.

What happened to the Sierra club recently is basically an intense form of what Duggan argues happened to many interest groups beginning in the 70s.

What I observed was the Republicans forcing middle of the roaders to make a choice on such issues as baby killing, queers seducing your children, and selling out our sovereignty to the UN. The radical polarization of Amerika is a result of picking on one group at a time and turning them into single issue voters. Of course, we recognize the "straw man" fallacy, but if you are a skilled con man (i.e. Republican)and you pick out gullible marks, this con works over and over.

So gayrebel83 is forced to be a single issue voter because the homophobes are single issue voters. And their coalition of other hate groups give them too much power to ignore.

Basically, all labor wants (or shoud want) is higher wages for employees (ie, economic power flowing down to the people), and all environmentalists should want is for capital not to see the environment as having no cost for society if it's destroyed (ie, when corporations polute the environment, they are shifting costs to people-- eg, those getting cancer -- and they're shifting profits to themselves).

However, beginning in the 70s, RW'ers got their claws both into the labor movement and into the environmentalist movement, and now they're at odds. Many environmentalists don't give a shit about jobs and about power flowing down to the people who work for a living, and many labor activists are in bed with capital. They don't understand the other's issues, and don't see the big picture, which is that it's all about which direction power flows.

They're a class of people the republicans convince to vote on values because, if they voted on their economic best interests, they'd vote for Democrats.

It's crazy to think that, to counter this, you need to vote on the single issue of gay rights, because to do so is to be equally manipulated by the right wing. You think voting for Al Damato is going to solve your problems? It's clearly going to do the opposite.

And if you want to undermine homophobics manipulated by the right to vote only on the issue of values, then vote for Democrats (regardless of their stand on any single issue) and make sure that they flow power down to these people so that they can get a damn education and learn how society works best when we all work together and when we're all powerful economic actors.

That is a question I would like to ask many of the LCRs.

our party actually benefits from single issue voting. Other than Jews, another special case, gay males are the only white males who vote for Democrats at the rate they do (3 to 1 at a minimum).