Missing the Forest for the Trees | The Plight of Single-Issue Voters

By Gabriel Green

A buddy used an analogy to describe the problem faced by single-issue voters to me, that I’d like to share with you.

“It’s like you’re in a street fight, and you see the other guy pull out a knife. Then, because you’re so focused on the knife, you forget that he can still kick, bite, punch, and headbutt you.”

I added, “you also forget about his buddies standing behind you.”

I don’t like “fighting” language in politics; we’re on the same team. But I like the analogy.

Not Wrong to Care | Dangerous to Focus

See, the thing is, it’s not that the issue of the knife isn’t important. It may even be the most important thing to watch for in the course of the fight. If they get you with it, you’re a lot worse off than if they punch or kick you.

But, if you are only focused on the knife, you leave yourself vulnerable to other threats. And that’s how you end up getting really beat up, or worse.

And this is the problem with single issue voters, no matter how crucial their issue is.

Gabriel’s Big Issue

I, for instance, would probably come the closest to being “single-issue” when it comes to protecting the planet, and this beautiful patch of it we call “Wyoming.”

Regardless of how much you personally think humans are contributing to our changing climate, the climate is still changing. At the very least, we need to be adjusting NOW to the changes in precipitation, increasing severity of storms, and the natural vulnerabilities to population centers that accompany growth.

Ignoring the problem does not make the problem go away.

And, if we don’t adjust at least some of how we do things, a lot of what makes life so great on this planet will go away. Even a single species dying out is bad for everything, but selfishly it bums me out to think of future generations never seeing certain creatures. To say nothing of the cascading effect of biodiversity loss, the devastation to our water supply, the loss of being able to see stars from light pollution, etcetera.

I’d like to add a little note here. States like Wyoming are falsely targeted by environmentalists’ solutions, when really almost every single change needs to happen in our cities not our rural areas. Cities could be the solution by doing things like vertical forestry on the outside of skyscrapers, and instead they focus on destroying our livelihoods.

But, even with this as my biggest issue, I also believe in things like resource extraction.

That’s why I focus on “Stewardship.” At some point you need to use the land, and stewardship acknowledges this and focuses on sustainability, not the myth of “untouched landscapes” that dominate east coast circles. Stewards maintain what they have and improve upon it where they can. That’s what we should all be doing in Wyoming.

And, as anyone from Wyoming knows, petroleum is basically magic!

With petroleum we can make a LOT of the things that go towards fighting climate change, like the “whitest white” paint that can simulate ice cap effects as we work to otherwise reverse course on melting them. Insofar as we’re “too far gone” on a lot of things, we NEED to use technology to cope, while also working harder to prevent further devastation.

Resources extraction is literally key to how we do that.

But, if I was single-issue, it’d be easy for me to be conned into believing that we need to stop extracting resources.

Focus on Values

Here’s the unfortunate reality.

Politicians LOVE single-issue voters because they are easy to calculate in voting breakdowns when charting a “path to victory.”

They’re also easy to terrify.

Take the issues facing our planet laid out above. Too often, the focus of the propaganda industry and their crony politicians is on making it seem like anyone who cares about the issue must pursue a certain reform. Maybe it’s wind energy or electric cars. To them, if you care about the planet, you have to favor policies that promote those specific solutions.

Now, me, I don’t think either of those does much good at all. But, I see why some folks do.

If I care about supporting leaders who share my values about the planet, I can be open to different suggestions for how to solve the problem.

But, if I’m won over by the propagandists, suddenly I can’t accept it when someone says that their solution to climate change and biodiversity loss is anything other than wind and electric cars (you know, both of which can contribute to biodiversity loss when done poorly, and are often made with harmfully extracted materials from China).

It’s not that wind energy and electric cars have NO place in my calculus. I just don’t pretend they’re anything other than a drop in the bucket towards solving the real problems.

We must end the focus on single solutions and instead focus on leaders’ values.

The Real Problem

Imagine that there’s a reformer, with really good ideas to fix our messed-up nation.

They want to do a lot of things that sound great, are common sense, and align with your end goals for the country. Maybe they even share some ideas that you’ve always thought, but never heard from an elected leader.

But, then, they admit that they aren’t going to pursue the specific solution that you’ve been told to care about. (Or maybe they’re part of the “wrong” political party…)

They just lost your vote. And, probably a lot of others.

Not only does this contribute to stale ideas and tired solutions, but there’s a bigger issue.

It’s Always About Money

Because our politicians know that so many “single-issue voters” are also “single solution” voters, they like to trap themselves and opponents in boxes. And that’s a big way they avoid getting anything done.

Think about it like this…

If the only acceptable solution to climate change is wind farms, but only around 50% of the country likes it, then they can avoid actually implementing anything. They can always be “just a few votes short” of getting the solution across the finish line. And then they can justify you giving them more money to try to get it done. And on and on.

What if instead, we had leaders who tried to find solutions that were palatable to most people?

Reimagining Politics as Consensus

If something isn’t widely popular, it’s not necessarily a bad idea. And sometimes even unpopular solutions are worth advocating for. It just might need to have some more time being talked about, workshopped, and refined so it’s more acceptable to most people.

But, the art of politics is the art of finding what most of us can live with most of the time.

Nothing will make everyone happy, but we shouldn’t be so content with our 51%-to-49% margins on everything that matters. It’s why so many folks are so dissatisfied, and that’s why a country that has never been as materially wealthy has never felt so miserable and close to violence.

We need to stop electing leaders, and listening to propagandists, who keep us stuck on the issues that they know divide. The issues that are marginally popular/unpopular. There is PLENTY that we the people agree on.

And, maybe by starting from a place of consensus, we can actually rebuild the social muscles necessary for the heavy lifting of navigating controversial topics.