If one were to go by posts on Townhall there are a lot of single issue voters out there. And, unlike the past, when pro-life Republicans were almost the sole single-issue voting block, it appears that there are several new single issue voting blocks out there. We have those who swear that immigration is the sole test of a candidate, those who argue that CFR membership disqualifies any candidate, the anti-war crowd, and, as always, the pro-life block.

These groups can be either the backbone or the bane of a party, usually a bit of both. By focusing on one issue they tend to draw more attention to it than would normally be given. As evidence, one need only look at the Republican commitment to the pro-life cause. Had there been fewer single issue voters the Republicans might have been tempted to moderate their stand to bring in more support from otherwise conservative voters who were in the pro-choice camp.

On the other hand, single issue voters can also be the bane of their party, as the anti-war block is proving to be to the Democrats. The Democrats strongly opposed to the war are numerous, just like the pro-life lobby among the Republicans. The problem is, that while the Republicans could be strongly pro-life while still putting together a winning coalition of conservative independents and Republicans, the strong anti-war stand risks alienating the independents and leaving the Democrats unable to gather enough votes.

However, I am not interested in discussing the effects of single-issue voters on the party, so much as I am interested in discussing single-issue voters themselves. How, though at times they can serve to bring attention to an important question, most of the time they end up harming their cause more than helping it.

The main problem with single issue voters is that there really are no "single issues", every issue is the outcome of a set of beliefs, or, properly speaking, the possible outcome of one or more sets of beliefs. For example, the idea that we should not be fighting in Iraq could be the result of the belief that we should only fight defensive wars or that all wars are evil.  It could even come from the belief that we should join with the Islamic militants and form a world-wide caliphate. Obviously on other questions these three views would produce very different government. But,t he single issue voter, by not looking at the big picture ends up voting in people who contradict their beliefs on a number of other issues only because they are "right" on one belief.

For example, besides an opposition to abortion, how many values do our pro-life activists share with Ceausescu? Or how many common beliefs do the International ANSWER crowd share with Ron Paul, other than opposition to the war? Yet, when viewed as single issue voters, pro-life voters would support Ceausescu over Giuliani. (Say what you will about Giuliani, but he is no Ceausescu.) Or Democrats would have to vote for Ron Paul over say Hillary Clinton, despite the fact that he opposes almost all of the programs in which they believe.

Nor does the single issue voter really consider the philosophy behind the candidate, they simple look at one issue and vote. For instance, let us look at the amnesty question. A number of left-leaning politicians are anti-immigration, not from any philosophy, but because the unions are anti-immigration. However, they are Demcorats, and should the union vote decline in their district, it is quite likely they will join their party in its pro-amnesty stand. So voting them in does not guarantee a principled stand against amnesty. And, by handing more power to the Democrats, who are largely pro-amnesty, may actually hasten amnesty rather than block it.

Worse still, most single issue voters have a "cut off", a level below which they simply refuse to vote. So in a race  between a candidate who is 25% pro-life and one who is 0% pro-life, they sit it out and allow the candidate who is 0% pro-life win, thus setting back their cause even farther. In other words, rather than vote for someone with whom they mostly disagree they let someone with whom they completely disagree win. I discussed this before in terms of people opposing McCain for not being conservative enough, but it applies to single issue voters as well. Better to have a pro-choice candidate who allows restrictions than one who allows none.

Finally, the single issue voters tend to also destroy their own political clout. By saying "either embrace our cause in its entirety or we will not vote" they guarantee they will be ignored once they no longer provide sufficient votes.For example, if I were a Democrat and thought I could get more votes by going moderately pro-war than I could get from the anti-war crowd, there is no reason not to become very strongly pro-war. After all, the anti-war crowd has said any deviation means I will write off all their votes, so why not go even more strongly over to the pro-war camp  to grab more votes, since I lost the anti-war vote in any case? By saying categorically that they will not vote, single-issue voters end up with no clout once their cause no longer garners enough votes to win on its own, or even once abandoning the extreme position promises more votes than they get from the single issue voters.

There is nothing wrong with being interested in a single issue, even in pushing the party to take a specific stand on that issue. But it is foolish to make that issue the single litmus test for all candidates and to refuse to embrace any candidate who is "wrong" on the issue. Doing so will, in the end, simply push the electorate in the opposite direction. It is still better to have a less wrong candidate rather than a more wrong one, regardless of the issue.

POSTSCRIPT

I am sure that some reply will tell me they cannot ethically support someone who allows abortion. And on a liberal site I am sure someone would say they cannot ethically support anyone who wants to continue fighting in Iraq. To both I would respond that their position is not truly ethical.

Let us look at both and see why.

Suppose you believe abortion is murder and so you cannot support anyone who allows abortion. However, if you have a choice between a pro-chocie candidate who allows exceptions and one who does not, by allowing the candidate who allows no exceptions to win you are allowing more murders. Is it not more ethical to support the candidate who causes less harm than to sit it out and allow even more murders? Or is your own personal ethical purity more important than those lives?

Likewise, for the anti-war protest voter who would not support a candidate who supports the war, is there no difference between a candidate who would draw down the troops and one who would not? One who would leave in a year and one who supports endless deployment? Again, to say you can't vote for one is to put your own ethical purity above the better outcome, form your perspective.

I know that these people mean well when they say these things, but in many ways they are not acting to stop wrong because they feel it would somehow sully them. Is it not better to take on some ethical taint to do real good?

Well, that is my perspective on it. I am sure many disagree, but I just can't see it. If you can minimize the harm you should act to do so, even if it risks giving legitimacy to a position with which you disagree. You can later fight to make things better. But if the present choice is between bad and worse, letting worse win so you don't "endorse" bad is just idiocy.