I am a One-Issue Voter

My friend, a staunch Republican, got mad at me once for this. I had heard that Conoleezza Rice was considering running for president. But I had also heard that she was pro-choice (I am not sure if this is true; I had heard that rumor). I told my friend that, if this were true, I couldn't vote for her. I am a one-issue voter, I said. He was livid and told me that I was the reason Republicans lost elections. Interestingly, this challenge comes both from the left and the right in the Christian world (and more from the left this year). This is my response:

1. Everyone is a one-issue voter. There is, for everyone, a single issue that would sway their opinion one way or another. Perhaps it isn't abortion. What about segregation? Would you support a candidate who was in line with you on every issue but also supported racial segregation? Doubtful.

2. One-issue voting is litmus test voting. Or, we could call it "front door" voting. What do you have to know about a politician before you let them in your front door? This goes along with point number 1. There are issues that will immediately dissuade you from voting for a person. But if they pass that test, you let them in the front door. But does that mean you'll let them walk around the house? Nope. There are other things to consider, other issues. So abortion, for me, is a front door issue. Once you're in, we can talk more.

3. The issues of one-issue voters are usually more important than other issues. That is, there is a hierarchy of issues. Abortion is my one-issue because, in my opinion, it is legalized genocide. There is no difference between killing a 4 week old in the womb and a 4 week old out of it. Can you imagine a politician who was not opposed to the killing of toddlers and even went so far as to call this practice a basic human right? That would instantly become your one-issue and you'd consequently disqualify him/her from getting your vote. That's why I am baffled at those who believe life begins at conception, yet argue that we have to look at all the issues when deciding on a candidate. What they mean is that all issues are equal. That is logically absurd. The issue of health care is obviously important. But more important than the murder of innocent children?

4. Voting like a utilitarian is voting as though you are God. My friend was mad at me because by making abortion into a litmus test, I (and others) allowed for the possibility that another candidate, perhaps a much worse candidate, would get elected. Therefore, his argument was that I should vote like a utilitarian. "I don't agree on everything with X-politician, but we agree on most things, and that is good enough. My vote is both for them and against what would prove to be much worse." As a blood-bought Christian I can't agree with this strategy. This philosophy says that you can abandon a few basic, moral beliefs on account of making sure the right candidate--the person you think is the best for the country and world--gets elected. You know best. That philosophy, I believe, is unChristian. We are not called to live as those who justify the means by the ends precisely because we have no capacity to know, on a macro scale, what is "good" and what isn't. Rather, we are called to live holy lives in every way, at all times (1 Pet. 1:14-16). Voting for someone who does not actively work to end mass genocide would be an abandonment of the new nature we have received (Rom. 6). And we do this based on the knowledge that God will work all things out in the end for his glory and our joy. It is our responsibility to vote with our conscience. It's God's responsibility to make sure things turn out the way he wants them to. He doesn't need our help.

See also on this subject this article from John Piper and this post from Joe Carter.