The Much-Reviled Single Issue Voter

Yeah, that's me.

I'm one of those simpletons, a Bitter Clinger, as Barack Obama would characterize me. I will vote in this election, as I did in the last election, on a single issue alone. There has been much talk about single issue voters this election, and much of it negative. We're portrayed as ignorant, poorly educated, mindless evangelical drones who care only about one aspect of our favored candidate, be it abortion, gun control, gay marriage or school vouchers. What's worse, from the perspective of most media pundits, these issues are supposed to be unimportant, or else already won by the liberals in the government. How dare we, the unwashed masses who went to public schools and got jobs where our hands get dirty, choose our candidates based on their stances on issues that don't fall within their worldview as something important?

In my recent discussions with liberal acquaintances of mine, I've discovered that they honestly feel those of us on the right, who opposed McCain in the primaries with some vehemence and now support him outspokenly, are rather shallow of intellect, and care only about winning (well, yeah, winning is pretty important). On the other hand, they view themselves as intellectual superiors, choosing their candidates based on some transcendent understanding of things far above the minds of us plebes, and a broad agreement across a variety of policies.

But I would challenge any of them, and indeed anyone from the left, to demonstrate to me how any issue, or any collection of issues, is more important than the single issue on which this voter is making his decisions. The simple fact is that in this era, national security is more important than anything else at stake in the coming election. Truth be told, it always has been, but we were more than fortunate for a good 40 years or so to not have to worry about it so much as we do today. But today, at this critical juncture in American history, we face an enemy so evil and bent on our destruction that we must elect government officials who are going to stand strongly in our defense. If we lack security, nothing else matters. We can continue to bail out Wall Street giants, send out stimulus checks, reform social welfare programs and improve our education and healthcare systems, but if people who are bent on our destruction are not stopped, it is all for naught.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The primary purpose of any government is to ensure the sovereignty of its nation, and to protect its citizens from foreign attack. Everything else is a far distant second.

While I do not agree with Senator McCain on a variety of issues (economic policy and environmental policy come to mind), I trust him infinitely more than Obama to do what is necessary to defend our nation and its interests from foreign attack. I believe that a President Obama would leave us incredibly weak and vulnerable to aggressive rogue nations like North Korea and Iran, and to new, anti-American alliances like the one forming between Russia and Venezuela. The world is only getting more dangerous by the moment, and we need a president who is prepared and resolved to do anything necessary to ensure our survival in it. John McCain fits that description, and Obama simply does not.

So call me simple, or uneducated, but that's the single issue I'm voting on. And it will continue to be so, until we have two candidates who are equally capable of preserving our union.

~Cephas
THE FREE RADICAL

6 comments:

Dennis L Hitzeman said...

Now there's two of us!

Dave said...

When are we secure?

Cephas said...

That's a rather multi-faceted question, but here's what I believe to be the short of it. We are secure as a nation when our military is fully funded, equipped with all the latest technology we have developed, and allowed to conduct their business without political hampering. We are secure when our intelligence services are likewise fully funded, and allowed to perform their very essential function, no matter how unsavory it might be to the sandy vaginas in Congress. We're sercure as a nation when our economy and population is allowed to thrive without excessive taxes and choking regulation.

If our new president-elect is anything like the last Democrat administration we had, we will undoubtedly become less secure.

Dave said...

Ahhh. I can get with that.

I took your 'security' to be what I wanted it to be, and started arguing with it.

I can see where you're coming from. I wanted you to say, "we need to rid the world from tyranny, even if it takes everything we've got. There is a global war on islam, and we have to win."

However, just saying that we have the military and national security agency funding... I can see that.

Cephas said...

Well, in a roundabout way, I was saying those things as well. If we fully fund and support our military in intelligence services, and give them the tools and political backing they need, then we will win the global war on Islamic terror, and we will be able to make great strides in ridding the world of tyranny.

I would never assert that we are secure when there's nobody out there who wishes us harm. So long as we are the most powerful nation in the world, and so long as we stand for the freedoms and liberties that we do, there will be people out there who want to see us fall. But that will only happen if we let it happen, by not allowing those who are sworn to defend us to do what they do best.

Dave said...

Well, you pose another solution to our problems: become NOT the most powerful nation on the planet.

:D

top