Single issue voters are not necessarily shortsighted if the issue affects the state of the union. The war or the economy is far-reaching. However, fixation against gay marriage is shortsighted since it does not threaten the nation. Bashing “Hollywood liberals” is another that hardly scars the community of values. Hollywood laissez-faire, however, is an important issue when it commercializes sex, violence, and anti-heroism and should be jotted halfway down in the voter’s notepad.
Even if the voter accumulates a laundry list of cultural values from church-going to gun-control it should scarcely influence the voter when weighed against home defense, war and the economy. For instance a candidate that does not wear religion on his sleeve, believes in a woman’s right to choose, and is on the side of gay marriage is not going to displace his stand on a strong defense and economy. The voter should be shrewd enough to sweep aside his cultural posture in order to make the decision as to how the candidate intends to improve the economy and to prioritize war, peace and defense.
In the realm of economics, Kerry, for example, wants to rollback the tax cuts for the well-to-do so that he can prioritize the need for comprehensive health care. Obviously the majority of those making $200K or more, will oppose it — that’s only fair even though the rich know very well it is not a punishing tax hike inasmuch as the cut never should have been introduced in the first place in face of the ever-growing national debt. On the other hand, there is an obstinately legitimate argument to the trickle down theory that in the long run improves the economy, yet overlooking the sacrifices the lower class has to make for its patience and trust in the investment class. Moreover, there is no guarantee that investments are aimed at the betterment of infrastructure, environment or for that matter American industrialization. Since all four candidates are multi-millionaires, I assume that they have substantial investments overseas.
As for defense, it is not a question of for or against but in what manner the $billions are appropriated to arrive at an enduring peace. With the immediate threat of terrorism, does the candidate primarily want expenditures to combat the threat or should he still consider the $billions for missile defense and how much should be appropriated? Further, should war based on questionable intelligence be the norm or should war be declared only in face of a clear and present danger to the nation and/or truly democratic allies abroad?
These two overriding factors dwarf surficial biases concerning cultural values. For in the last analysis a strong defense and economy are the means by which citizens can develop their tastes for cultural preferences that hopefully do not step on the preferences of others.
Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: July, 10, 2004.