Yes, I am a single issue voter....aren't you?

I have voted in every election since 1992 (the first election after my 18th birthday).  I have a pretty simple policy for deciding which candidates I will or will not vote for.  If a candidate is pro-choice I will not vote for them no matter how appealing their policies may be.  Absolutely, positively, no exceptions.

The founders of this nation declared that we as American citizens have certain inalienable rights those being "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  It is no accident that life appears first in this list of rights, because without it the other two do not matter.  Life is the most basic human right and any nation that ceases to protect that right cannot be trusted to protect our other rights.  I firmly believe that any candidate who defends the aborting of an innocent child has disqualified him/herself from public office. 

Now some might say "Come on, you can't be serious.  There are hundreds of other issues out there that are equally as important like poverty, AIDS, etc.  As a single issue voter you are ignoring these other issues."  I disagree.  Yes, these are important issues but I ask you this question.  Why would I trust a person who defends the murder of innocent children in the womb with any other issue of human rights.  That is like saying "Yes, I know Adolf Hitler and Idi Amin killed a lot of innocent people but they did a great deal for healthcare and they raised the standard of living."  It is absolutely absurd.

For those who mock my "single issue politics" let me ask you this; "If a candidate agreed with you on every position but had a clear track record of racism or sexism, would you consider that candidate qualified for office?"  Of course you wouldn't, hence making you a single issue voter as well.  Welcome to the club!

PS: If you want an interesting take on abortion from an honest feminist read this:

"But the pro-life position, whether or not it is based on religious orthodoxy, is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand. My argument (as in my first book, "Sexual Personae,") has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature's fascism. Nature herself is a mass murderer, making casual, cruel experiments and condemning 10,000 to die so that one more fit will live and thrive.  Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman's body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman's entrance into society and citizenship.  On the other hand, I support the death penalty for atrocious crimes (such as rape-murder or the murder of children). I have never understood the standard Democratic combo of support for abortion and yet opposition to the death penalty. Surely it is the guilty rather than the innocent who deserve execution?" Camille Paglia (Source: http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/)

Comments

[Dan]

Am I a single issue voter? Actually no, I’m not.
Let me explain
The issue of abortion has, for lack of a better term, fascinated me since I became politically aware in my teen years. Now as a believer, this issue in particular strikes at me much different than ever before. Just recently I had to let my wife know that I am to be considered "Pro-life". I see the issue from a viewpoint I had not in my previous life.
The concept of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" has long been defined and defined very well by historians and theologians. Its no secret what our founding fathers meant and imply with these words. The question of when does life begin is easy to answer. However, there is one question that remains to be asked by believers related to your question of being a “single issue voter”.
Why do Christians vote for politicians solely on this issue?
In my short time of living on earth I have not witnessed any other issue that will cause a large, seemingly intelligent group of people, vote for some of the most inept politicians based upon their pro-life stance? Before I came to faith in Christ, when I observed this phenomena I just chalked it up a Christian ignorance. Now as a believer, and having been blessed with meeting many good Christians and discussing politics. I realize that maybe my original thought was not far off base. It is ignorance, not from sheer stupidity, but more from a true lack of knowledge regarding both world and Biblical history. When probed why a fellow believer is backing a candidate the obvious answer is: “He/She is pro-life”. Well that’s easy, why else? “They’re Christian, too!” any other reason? “They are all we have” or some variation.
That last statement is the one the scares me the most and I mean it actually does scare me to my core. “They are all we have” just does not cut it with this Christian and voter. What that really translates to is: “Just have a pro-life stance and we’ll vote for you”. Any issue after that is apparently ignored for I guess what would be considered the greater good. The greater good of what I don’t know because even after a ‘pro-life’ candidate takes the oath of office it’s the same ol’ song and dance and no progress is made on stopping any abortions. If the last eight years has proved that to us, then I guess voting in another so-called conservative for eight more might? As a conservative I am dumfounded at fellow conservatives for this thinking and embrace of a party that has for the last 30 years told us what we want to hear, so they can get into office and do as they choose. I look back into out nations history, all the way to Abraham Lincoln (Yes conservatives, we have to go farther back than Reagan to get a clear view), and study what made him and other conservative presidents great. It was their simple adherence to conservative beliefs that make them stand out.
If we do not demand good moral leaders, we will never receive them as constituents. How do we demand them? Easy do the radical thing and not vote. I refuse to settle, so this Christian will be home in November, watching the votes be counted less mine. I may be a single issue voter in a sence, but the whole package is what I consider more important.
I think it appropriate to close with a warning to my fellow Christians. I see Idi Amin and Adolf Hitler were used as examples. Want to know a major difference between the two? Amin took power by a military coup. Hitler was voted in peacefully by his own countrymen. Why? Because Hitler was a one issue guy. He promised if he took power, he’d rebuild Germany and make her stronger than before. And for a time, he kept his promise.
God Bless,
Dan

[Duane]

Hi Dan. I think you may be misunderstanding the point of my post. When I say I am a single issue voter it does not mean that other issues do not matter or have no bearing in my electoral choice. My point is that the life issue is my litmus test for evaluating candidates. If a candidate is pro-choice then where he or she stands on the other issues is of little consequence to me. If a candidate takes a strong pro-life stance then I will consider them based upon their take on other issues. But as I said if a person supports the deliberate and intentional murder of innocent babies in the womb then I could never in good conscience support them regardless of their other views.

You asked “Why do Christians vote for politicians solely on this issue?” and my answer is I have yet to meet a Christian who does. Most of the Christians I know would hold to a similar position as the one I expressed in the original post. My point there is that if you believe that child within the womb is a living, breathings, human being with a right to live then the abortion issue must trump all other issues.

Consider this scenario. You find yourself a citizen of a country where it is perfectly legal to euthanize children up to the age of 5 for reasons ranging from financial burden to general inconvenience.

You have 2 candidates running for office in an election year. One is staunchly pro-life and the other is staunchly pro-choice. On other issues you find yourself at odds with the pro-life candidate about 75% of the time and the pro-choice candidate only about 25% of the time but you know that the candidate who is elected will likely have the opportunity to appoint 2 or more supreme court judges in his/her term and these judges will have the opportunity to uphold or overturn the law allowing children under 5 to be euthanized. What would you do?

For me this isn’t an issue of conservatism but an issue of a most basic morality. Even the most conservative of politicians will still let us down. We live in a broken and fallen world so the expectation of a perfect candidate (or political party) is not going to be a reality. When it comes to issues of taxes, campaign finance, even freedom of speech, I think God is neutral (for lack of a better word) but this is not the case when it comes to the issue of life. He has made it abundantly clear; He hates hands that deliberately and purposely shed innocent blood.

[Dan]

Duane:
I did understand your original post. I was just using it as a springboard to my question.
You may use abortion as a litmus test for a candidate, which is not my issue per se. The problem is I see many Christians that use it as the ONLY test. Any issue after that, no matter how absurd, seems to be just accepted. That mentality bothers me. It appears nobody sees the danger in that type of political process. The politicians know to tell us what we want to hear and when they do the opposite, well they know the “bread and circuses” will pacify most.
Your scenario oddly touches on what bothers me too. Voting for people who will appoint justices that will find my point of view. I want justices who will uphold the Constitution as Justice Scalia says: “The Bill of Rights is meant to protect you and me from, whom do you think? The majority. My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk. And the notion that the justices ought to be selected because of the positions that they will take that are favored by the majority is a recipe for the destruction of what we’ve had for 200 years”. In addition, I think that is a dangerous assumption that once a supposed justice is on the court they’ll decide a case in a Godly manner.
I know there is no perfect candidate. But at the same time I feel like I am not really asking for much either. Just some personal accountably from the people in high places. After this last administration and the current way voters seem to think, I now know why some clamor for a return to the Reagan years.
God Bless,
Dan
p.s. I should not have made that bust on the Reagan lovers in my e-mail to you the other day. I might just join them in the time machine LOL!

[Duane]

Dan we generally agree. I think we just have a different way of saying the same thing. Why don't you just come out and agree with me? It would save a lot of time :-)

[Dan]

Yes, I agree we suffer from saying the same things, just differently. But I can't agree with you because I say them better than you!

LOL!

Dan