As we watch the meltdown of the Trump campaign, wondering how and why it took this long, this level of sleaze, this particular set of revelations to trigger the rat/ship/flight response of the much of the Republican establishment, some people have discussed whether or not this latest scandal will also keep the evangelicals from voting for Trump. Will they stay home? Will they hold their noses and vote for him anyway? We know that for many of them the rallying cry is Supreme Court, Supreme Court … the hope that a Trump presidency would lay the groundwork for an ultimate rejection of Roe v. Wade. In other words, many of them are single-issue voters, focusing entirely on the abortion question. But how can they stand the stench? How can they cast their votes for a man who seems to represent the antithesis of everything else they say they believe? I don’t know. But here are some thoughts.
I am a single-issue voter. From the overwhelming data and analyses, I know that climate change is happening, that human activity is the primary driver, and I believe that the consequences of climate change threaten civilization as we know it. There is dramatic change that will still happen even if we do take action in the many necessary ways, and if we do not act, the world that is rising in the wake of our emissions is almost unbearable to envision. Even if I did not have children of my own (and I do), and hopes of grandchildren one day (and, again, I do), I would continue working to slow down the speed and the enormity of the behemoth we have summoned. And I believe that my vote, and the votes of others that I can influence, can make a difference in how we respond, could make the difference in what kind of world we leave for the generations after us.
What if Trump was the one who thought climate change is real, and must be responded to, and Clinton was the one who believed it is a Chinese hoax?
Or, to frame it a little differently… how reprehensible would a candidate have to be for me, as a single-issue voter, to not vote for that candidate, if the reprehensible candidate was, for me, on the side of saving civilization, and the non-appalling one, in terms of behavior, was on the other side?
I don’t know.
Perhaps you will say (and this is what I say to myself) that it is a moot point, that facts have a liberal bias (yay!), that the Republicans are anti-science, and don’t think (at least publicly) that climate change is happening – that this scenario would never happen.
But the issues that are inflaming hearts and minds right now have nothing to do with science or climate change. Some Democrats are assholes and sleazes and abusers. What if. What if my we-must-act-on-climate-change candidate was an abuser and a sleaze? A rapist? How would I vote?
I don’t know.