When a voter has a "dealbreaker," a single issue that trumps all others, how do they reconcile their general pragmatism with their emotional balance? For example, when a staunch republican father whose son is at war decides to vote Democrat to get his boy the hell out of danger, what does he tell his friends? When a Democratic social worker has worked her whole life saving up enough money to provide their children a comfortable life, only to find out that part of Obama's tax plan includes a massive inheritance tax, how does she quell the voices in the back of her mind to pull the lever for the other guy? I've been thinking about this a good deal all weekend, after meeting people who have not yet decided which presidential candidate they will vote for, and some others who intend to participate on Election Day, but will start their voting one line down from the top.
For me, I think part of the issue is that political parties these days are generally too unwilling to compromise to the views of the other side. But that's not how people work. People are a blend of ideals and ideas, and usually don't fall into rank and file of a specific political party. Take pro-life feminism, for instance. There's a really great article in the Christian Science Monitor about the dilemma some women face when deciding which party to support. Take a read, I think some good discussion can come of this. Angela Kays-Burden writes:
"Single-issue voters are not simple-minded. They make the hard decision to compromise on a myriad of urgent issues in order to vote their conscience on the one most important to them.
Our parties need to redefine themselves for moderate female voters – and left-leaning pro-life men – who see abortion as a lack of alternatives, rather than a celebration of progress. These female voters lead in their families, schools, and communities but still don't know where they belong in politics."
I agree. Do you?
Posts
1 comment:
This is a tricky topic. The example you use about "pro-life" (which I call anti-choice) feminists seems informative. The abortion issue is one of the most polarizing. However, I cannot agree that there should be a candidate or a party that runs on an anti-choice but also pro-woman platform. The Republican party may try to do so, but as Kays-Burden points out, if she wants to be both anti-choice and pro-woman, she would have to choose between the two parties.
"As a social worker who believes that life begins at conception, I am both pro-life and pro-woman. Both parties' platforms force me to betray my core values and choose between the two."
Unfortunately, I do not see how that can be reconciled. If, for instance, both candidates run on an anti-choice platform, many would-be voters would simply stay home. That's not productive either.
In this era, there must be one candidate who is anti-choice and one that is pro-choice. It is a deal breaker. For the issues of community health and just basic human civil liberty and privacy, pro-choicers can never vote for a candidate who does not share their viewpoint on this issue. The personal stakes are too high to allow this important civil liberty to be stripped away (assuming they view abortion as a civil liberty). Anti-choicers feel the same way on the other side.
So you want to spark a discussion. I do not see where there can be one. We all do not want unplanned pregnancies - anti-choicers and pro-choicers alike. So then we should increase contraception. But even that is not agreed-upon.
Single issues are non-negotiable because there is no middle ground. Abortions can either be legal or they cannot. There are shades of gray in terms of trimesters of pregnancy, etc. but for the most part, you either believe that abortions are okay or you do not. I don't see how those two things can be reconciled. And as long as voters feel that their rights are being infringed upon if abortion continues being legal (for anti-choicers) or goes the other way (pro-choicers), one who feels strongly about abortion either way will not be able to vote for someone who does not share his or her conclusions about this issue.
Post a Comment