Single-minded shortcomings

Responsible voting demands a complex evaluation

Have you yet been convinced to cast your next vote — for members of Congress, the state Legislature or other offices — on the basis of a candidate’s stance on gun control?

David Hogg, a young man who devoted himself to gun control activism in the wake of the school shooting in Florida, joined the ranks of advocates who appear to call on voters to make voting decisions solely, or at least primarily, on a single issue.

“What if our politicians weren’t the b **** of the NRA,” he said in an online video. “What if we stood up as Americans and fought for our freedom and our children’s lives?”

It sounds so simple, but it really isn’t for a serious voter.

For a moment, pretend that you’re a voter sympathetic to restricting access to guns, that you’re disgusted the NRA has such a stranglehold on federal action involving gun regulation. Let’s say you want to elect a candidate who is willing to do something about that.

If you’re a voter willing to let a single issue decide who gets your support, your job is done. Incomplete, but done.

Guns represent a minuscule portion of what a member of Congress or a state legislator will have to address. Indeed, issues such as government-funded health insurance for the poor, tax rates and adequately funding agencies and services make up a good deal of a lawmakers’ responsibilities. Whether it’s a city council or Congress, where the money goes really says a lot about priorities.

Electing a candidate based only on a single issue is like a motorist turning over his responsibilities to a self-driving car. It’s easy to know how that car is going to react in the predictable circumstances, but what about when other issues and obstacles arise? As the world witnessed in Arizona recently, a singular focus on removing the driver from the automobile’s control failed to effectively handle other external circumstances such as a woman walking into the roadway. The woman died.

Picking a candidate on the sole issue of gun control leaves a wide range of topics on which that candidate may not demonstrate, shall we say, good navigational skills. What good is it to get a favorable vote on one issue if the candidate crashes and burns on others of importance?

Conventional wisdom suggests Democrats are more likely to be strong advocates for gun limits than Republicans, so it seems picking a candidate based on gun control is more likely than not to produce a lawmaker who advances other issues favored by Democrats. So it’s conceivably independents and Republicans who require convincing to shift toward a candidate focused on gun control.

A lot of the advocacy for electing candidates who push gun control ignores the barrier some voters face in accepting that challenge, i.e., other issues matter a great deal.

Let’s say there are some conservatives who have become convinced of the need for greater gun control. Can a conservative person who believes abortion is murder embrace a gun control candidate if that candidate will also vote in favor of pro-choice policies? Can an independent who abhors higher taxation support someone ready to pass an increase as long as they’re going to vote right on guns?

Maybe those are extreme examples to make the point. But what if the pro-gun control candidate is weak when it comes to critical thinking, ethical behavior or even basic interest in the many other issues he or she will face in the position he wants to get elected to. Trust me: I’ve interviewed candidates who were staunch advocates for a particular issue but on practically every other point they could hardly think their way out of a paper sack.

In his gun control message, Hogg said, “What if we all voted and said, ‘This is not OK?”

Candidates are a package of perspectives and voters have to decide which package of ideas are most in tune with their own way of thinking. Rather than a knee-jerk vote on a single issue, voters really ought to devote themselves to getting to know candidates, especially those running for local and state offices we can meet in person.

If a single issue has motivated you, that’s awesome. Our communities need motivated voters — motivated to pay attention, to explore a wide range of issues and to cast a ballot on a candidate’s full slate of views and, just as important, their capacity to apply thoughtful deliberation to issues not yet identified.

Governing is complex, so our considerations about who we put in positions of responsibility and authority must also be complex. Single-issue voting reduces our jobs as voters to overly simplistic levels.

Inspired? Fine, but be inspired to be a complete voter.

Greg Harton is editorial page editor for the Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Contact him by email at gharton@nwadg.com or on Twitter @NWAGreg.