Let’s start with the premise that people are stupid and work backwards from there. On my way to work I had a lot of time to think. That’s what happens when I ride my bike, lots of time to think. This morning I was playing the role of sore loser. Yes, I was thinking about politics again. A lot of ink has been used to discuss the “moral majority” and it’s role in last year’s elections. (I guess the term “moral majority” hasn’t really been used in a while, but I like it so I’m using it.) I began to wonder where the “moral majority’s” other political beliefs lie, other than the narrow channel of social issues that seem to be the focus. Where do they stand on the economy? On business regulation? On tax policy? On foreign policy? On Federalism? On the “Constitution in exile” school of thought?

Say conservative judges are appointed who feel the court overstepped it’s bounds on Rowe? Say they apply this strict (“constructionist”) interpretation of the Constitution to legislation passed by congress in this century, that could similarly be dismissed as overstepping it’s bounds (based on a narrow interpretation of how the Federal government may regulate the states). I’ve read that civil rights, work place protections, regulations regarding overtime pay and a minimum wage, and environmental laws COULD go by the wayside under such an interpretation.

What of this notion that people are stupid? I’ve heard it suggested that the south was solid “blue” following reconstruction, until civil rights. I’ve heard it pointed out that the only Democrats elected president since Kennedy (and civil rights) were from the south. I’ve heard it suggested that certain western states voted “blue” until the Rowe decision. All of these things suggest (to me) that many of us really do vote based on a single issue. To be fair, if you believe that abortion is a life and death issue, then there’s no better issue to pick as a single issue litmus test for candidates. After all, what trumps life and death as an issue? Too bad they take a pass on the death penalty issue.

After thinking about all of this, the question on my mind is: are all of these folks, who are hoping to use the courts as a means to further their one issue, prepared for the possible consequences outside their one issue? What would happen to the defense of marriage act for goodness sakes?

American values? Is there really such a thing? Or, are we just a bunch of single issue voters who rationalize the rest of our guy’s platform? I present to you: bigotry, regionalism, and abortion, the holy trinity of single issue politics. I guess taxes should go in there somewhere, but it didn’t fit with the rest of my entry. Who needs accuracy when you’re on a roll? Hey, no one said I was any smarter,.

This message was sponsored, in part, by the RNC; “We’ve got your (censored) foreign policy right here!”