The Fallacy of a One-Track Mind
Regardless of the significance or triviality, there are some who are willing to mow down the wheat along with the weeds. The last two years, in particular, there have been a number of incendiary issues that have bolstered the popularity of the Democrats’ platform. Passion and a sense of priority may guide a voter toward or away from a political candidate. Practical considerations, which affect one’s life in a personal manner such as food, education, and rent (or mortgage), typically steal their focus from the big picture. This is understandable but ultimately short-sighted. The Dobb’s decision, the series of mass shootings, the “invasion” at the southern border, and international conflict have a lit a fire under U.S. citizens. While these issues have aided the Democrats in recent elections, the trend can just as easily reverse. The problem comes up when any given issue matters more to one individual than another. In many cases, there is avid opposition within the party depending on an issue. One person becoming disgruntled over perceived (if not real) inaction in an area that is of concern to he or she can lead to ambivalence toward a candidate or worse a defection from the party. Remember where there is one, there is one hundred.
In the case of the Democrats, there is no single issue within the party, but everyone in the party has a single issue. Our strength is in our ability to work together and look at a holistic vision of government. When one chooses a politician to support based on an individual concern or priority, he must be willing to assess and determine what he is willing to compromise to gain his primary issues. On occasion, it becomes necessary to temporarily forego one’s primary issue for what can be considered a greater or more urgent need. When a person is not willing to do that, he becomes a liability to the party or cause. Despite having a broader range of sometimes oppositional opinions on policies, Democrats unify and operate in an effective manner. The Republicans, on the other hand, have a more monolithic stance in terms of ideology but also face a critical disadvantage due to their tendency to dissemble over the most minute of details. Despite the flaws endured by both parties, in practice, the Democrats manage to operate more successfully.
The unity achieved is costly. We are forced to openly embrace ideals we may not fully agree with but find it better to ally ourselves over common and larger interests and forgive one another on divergent matters as long as the topics aren’t too extreme. This requires us to be very careful about any disagreement in policy, because we can’t afford to fracture over objections which can be forgiven or tabled until a better time.
There are many policies that I don’t truly support, but I know better than to voice them. The truth is that “Cancel Culture” exists and we, the Democrats, wield it like a sabre in the hands of an Olympic fencer. Extending the metaphor, the words slash or thrust, and you can be certain they will always draw blood. However, you can also parry. This is largely done by knowing what can be said on a subject and whom it can be said to. An example of our cohesion is exemplified by the achievement of the Affordable Care Act during the Obama administration. A blue trifecta managed to craft a healthcare policy to extend to more people and protect those with disabilities. More often than not things are easier to destroy than make. Yet, during the Trump administration’s red trifecta the Republicans were unable to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act due to indecisive action and in-fighting. The Affordable Care Act despite its flaws, was too popular and important to repeal without a replacement ready. Despite controlling both chambers of legislature and the presidency they remained feckless, because they couldn’t agree on how to form a new healthcare system.
A dedication to one issue can be strong motivation to advocate or vote for a candidate. The converse it true. Democrats tend to be accepting of a variety of special interests. As stated before, no two people are going to share the same view on political equally. There’s the matter of passion about an issue. At times, the devotion to a position exceeds acceptability, or there is too great of an incongruity with other principles. This is where the problem emerges.
A trend over the last few administrations has been a tendency to sit out an election if one’s preferred candidate doesn’t not win the nomination for the elected position. Fearfully, the lesson hasn’t been learned by enough people because there is still the concern of it happening in the upcoming presidential election. The election is to be a match-up between former-President Donald Trump and current President Joe Biden. There should be no question of who should be chosen, and that is President Biden. I, personally, am a huge fan of Joe Biden. However, even if I despised him, there is no acceptable reason to support Donald Trump returning to office through action or inaction.
Younger voters are becoming more active in the election process, and that is a good thing for Democrats. They seem to have a clear view of what the future holds for them and understand which party will serve them best in the long run. Conversely, they will make emotional decisions that work against their own interests due to short time dissatisfaction. Their willingness to sit out an election because they feel that they can’t forgive a candidate for a single act or issue, makes them very unreliable. This unreliability can range from skewing polls to losing elections. Issues such as:
- The victimization of the Palestinians by the aggression of Israel
- Immigration
- Changes in Education Curriculum
- Voting Rights
What single-issue voters forget is that by abandoning the election process entirely they are giving up their influence on all issues. Things they should keep in mind are: is your dissatisfaction of any of the aforementioned issues worth forgoing all the others? For example, is your stance of the border wall worth giving up:
- Female reproductive rights?
- Healthcare access?
- Access to social services like Medicare or even just unemployment insurance?
- Universal Pre-K?
If so, then one could consider you as big of a problem as the Republicans. As stated elsewhere, I believe anyone with the right to vote has the right not to vote. If one is truly conflicted on the issue, I can understand the fear of making the wrong vote. However, anyone protesting a preferred candidate over one or two issues should realize that any vote wasted is a vote toward their opponent.
Another thing that these (non)voters seem to ignore. Is that while all of these are significant problems which need to be addressed, the practicality of solving all these issues within one administration is nonexistent. The expectation of the President to resolve all of these problems by himself is ridiculous, considering Congress is the body responsible for creating the laws required to address these issues. The current Congress is completely dysfunctional. The composition of party membership has too small of a margin to accomplish much in the House of Representatives. The extreme nature of a few members is enough to cause any bill to come to the floor much less pass. The Senate which does a better job of compromising, still fails due to the filibuster, which again comes down to too small of a margin for either side to dominate. Changing the composition of Congress is just as important as changing or maintaining the Presidential administration.
The stakes are too high to get hung up on one issue. The MAGA supporters will all show up to vote in the fall. While they have only one issue, which is to promote their orange king. Their single issue will ensure that they will all vote. If the Democrats do the same, it won’t matter.
VOTE!
- Citizen Mooney