The Problem with Single-Issue Voters

How to vote like an adult

By:  Matt Fay

As the 2008 election season continues there are a large number of people who are starting to make decisions based on factors other than the color of their skin in voting for the black candidate; their gender in voting for a woman; or their age, personal disposition, or skin color in voting for the old, grumpy, white guy; a concept the mainstream media is yet to wrap its collective mind around.  This large group of people is the part of the electorate that will be basing its vote on the issues.  Interspersed amongst this group is a smaller group.  These are the single-issue voters.  When not being conveniently put into demographic groups based on an accident of birth, such as skin color or gender or year of birth, these are the people that are broken down into pro-life/pro-choice, pro-war/antiwar, or pro-gun/antigun camps.  But to make an informed, mature, and effective decision on whom to cast a vote for, a person must look at a diverse and complex set of issues.  Of course, to do this, many sources outside of the 24-hour news networks are needed because complexity tends to give most modern reporters and pundits a headache.

What, exactly, do you mean by "change" anyway? 

Here's hoping it means more than having a black man or woman in the White House

With all this talk of “change” in the 2008 Presidential Election, I think we should all take a serious look at what really needs to be changed in this country.  While the immediate implication is change from the failed policies of George W. Bush, the change that is really necessary runs far deeper.  There are clear differences in the mainstream candidates – positions on the Iraq War, health care, gay rights, abortion, the economy, gun rights, immigration and the environment.  However, the sound bites and rhetoric give voters little insight into what changes the candidates are really calling for. 

If Barack were white, would he really be where he is today?

Why Barack is on the fast track to the presidency

By Joe Holmes

I am by no means a Barack Obama supporter. However, I do think it says something about our country that we have a black man running for President of the United States of America – something tremendously positive. I think race has been such a divisive issue throughout the history of our country and it speaks volumes about our progress that we have a remarkably articulate, intelligent African American man running for our nation’s highest office. By and large I think Obama has not run as a black candidate, but instead has run as populist visionary seeking to unite our deeply divided nation. Despite all this, the Obama campaign seems to deny the impact of race on this historic presidential campaign.

Recent attacks have been unfairly levied again Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman to run on a national ticket as Vice-President, for her comment that Barrack Obama would not be where he was today – the front runner for the Democratic presidential nomination – if he was not black. When asked why Obama is in the position he is today Ferraro commented that, “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.” Defending her comments she later was later asked again and defended her previous position by saying, “I said in large measure, because he is black. I said, Let me also say in 1984 -- and if I have said it once, I have said it 20, 60, 100 times -- in 1984, if my name was Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would never have been the nominee for vice president.”

My first reaction was to pity him. He had spent four years and tens of thousands of dollars (not to mention thousands of taxpayer and alumni dollars) to learn economics, and walked away only having heard of one Hayek, and that from watching “Desperado”.

If four years of econ didn’t introduce a student to Hayek, surely the average Joe is unfamiliar with other great economic thinkers like Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman. What’s wrong with the world?

Nothing.