Single-issue voting is a mistake. Although a variety of groups encourage voters to choose candidates based only on their interests, this practice is bad for democracy. Normally, it is bad for the single-issue voter as well because it means ignoring other issues of direct importance to them. No matter how important an issue is to you, at least one other issue directly affects you in many important ways.
The most hyped issue in this presidential election is abortion. An alliance of conservative Catholics and Protestants have charged that no good Catholic can vote for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry because, though he is personally opposed to abortion, he refuses to impose his religion on others. But voting according to the dictates of Catholicism requires attention to all the issues. Catholicism opposes land mines, building more nuclear weapons and the global trade in arms. President Bush is strongly in favor of all three. Catholicism repudiates the doctrine of preemptive war, and the Pope has criticized the invasion of Iraq. Catholics could vote in good conscience for Kerry even if they disagreed with him on abortion or for Bush even if they disagreed with him on some other issue.
Indeed, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued a statement saying, \The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church's social doctrine does not exhaust one's responsibility towards the common good.""
Voting according to one's faith involves careful consideration of every issue, not just one of them. I recommend the nonpartisan website www.votingcatholic.org for a thorough voter guide on all aspects of Catholic belief.
Additionally, all Christian sects support helping the poor and exercising good stewardship over the environment. Kerry is stronger on both of these issues. Although Bush wears his faith on his sleeve, some Christians might be opposed to his apparent belief that God has ordained his actions (though it may explain why he is unable to name even a single noteworthy mistake in his administration). Some might be angry that, although Bush supports using evangelical churches to turn out Republican votes, he can't seem to find time to actually attend church himself. Thus, Christians could easily vote for either candidate.
On the other side, many wealthy businesswomen are strongly pro-choice. They see abortion as a women's rights issue. Eager to defend women's rights, they support Kerry. But the very fact that they are wealthy businesspeople makes this injurious to their self-interest. In no area are the candidates more clearly different; Kerry wants to tax the rich, Bush doesn't. Consequently, Bush has created the largest deficit in American history (which, I suppose, means that he wants some future president to tax our children to pay for his spending). Voting for Kerry could hit these women in the pocketbook because if they earn more than $200,000 a year, it could increase their taxes.
The other major single issue in American political life is gun control. Hunters and other sportsmen are justifiably concerned about the government intruding on their hobby. In this election, however, there is no clear choice for sportsmen. Both candidates are gun owners. Kerry appears to be a more avid hunter than Bush, and both promise to defend Second Amendment rights. As a result, opposition to gun control does not give a voter a clear choice in this election.
But commitment to environmental protection, the other issue of primary importance to sportsmen, does offer a choice. Hunting and fishing are all about enjoying nature. Our ability to enjoy our forests and streams depends on how well we protect them from pollution. Here Kerry has the clear edge, as Bush has significantly relaxed environmental standards, thereby threatening our nation's natural habitats. This may win approval from chemical companies but not from those who want their fish to swim in poison-free rivers. Thus, the seemingly unrelated ecology issue should inform the vote of sportsmen against gun control.
Judicious voters avoid letting their decision turn on a single issue. For some it may be a matter of faith to be informed and active citizens. For others it may be a matter of self-interest in getting lower taxes or protecting the environment. In either case, truly voting one's conscience requires examining a candidate's entire platform, not just one issue.
Josh Gildea is a third-year law student. He can be reached at opinion@dailycardinal.com. His column runs every Wednesday in The Daily Cardinal.
