Prioritizing

When people make decisions, there are three considerations which will usually ― consciously or unconsciously ― be a part of the decision-making process: (1) because, (2) in spite of, and (3) as long as. Let’s take a look.

Usually, we decide on a course of action because of a significant factor (or perhaps factors ― more on that later). I eat because I am hungry. I watch TV because I can’t or won’t think of anything better to do. I’ll go to the grocery store because I’m out of peanut butter.
But that’s not all. In all but the most simplistic decisions, we also decide on a course of action in spite of a significant factor or two that would indicate action to the contrary. I eat in spite of the fact that I don’t really need the calories. I watch TV in spite of the fact that I’ll be exposed to hours of odious advertising. And I’ll go to the grocery store for peanut butter in spite of the fact that it will cost me $1.69 in gas to do so.

And, whether we are conscious of it or not, our decisions usually involve action as long as a particular undesirable consequence does not occur, or as long as a suitable alternative does not exist. I eat as long as I don’t have to steal to do so. I watch TV as long as no one is around to have a conversation and a glass of Scotch with. And I go to the grocery store for peanut butter as long as I don’t have to shovel 8 inches of snow to do so.

All of which is a very long-winded way to say that human beings, when making almost any substantive decision, are wont to prioritize. Very few decisions are able to be boiled down to a simple, binary, either/or. There’s always another choice, or another “contributing factor” (there’s a plug for our blog!), or another complication to the decision-making process.

Say I need a vehicle. I need to consider many things. How many people will I need this vehicle to carry? What kind of gas mileage do I want? What sort of status do I wish to convey? What color do I like? What country’s industry do I want to support? How much money do I have to spend? How reliable do I want the vehicle to be? Whatever vehicle I end up buying, my decision-making formula will have looked something like: I bought this car because it x, y, and z, in spite of the fact that it a ― and I’ll be happy with my decision as long as b turns out like I expect it to.

The good news for vehicle buyers is that there are a myriad of choices available, almost infinitely customizable so that all but the most exquisitely selective purchaser can have his x, y, and z without having to worry much about the a, and can pretty much count on b as well.

The bad news for voters is that the same variety of realistic candidates is not really available (not to mention the fact that, unlike your car decision, the person for whom you decide to vote might not end up winning) ― such that voters need to be a lot more picky about their x, y, and z; a lot more tolerant of their a (and their a1, a2, a3 ...); and a lot more skeptical about their b.
All of which ends up being an encouragement that our discussion of “on what basis am I making my vote?” be both a little more, and quite a bit less, nuanced than it has been.

A little more nuanced, insofar as I’m not sure that Denny (stubborn and intransigent though he is) is not really a “one issue” voter. He might not have a y or a z in his consideration – in fact, he says that he doesn’t. Denny is voting for McCain because he thinks that McCain will be the best CinC for our nation in the War on Terror. The lack of a y or a z (and the fact that McCain’s “in spite of” list of a1, a2, a3... is so long) makes Denny see himself as a “one-issue” voter (and for that David and Scott are chiding him and urging him to have a wider view). But the reason I see Denny as a slightly more than one issue voter, and ask for a little more nuance, is the existence of b. Denny is more than happy to consider only McCain’s strong stance in the War on Terror, as long as he sees McCain as a principled, and generally reliable enough person. There simply aren’t that many as long as items to worry about. (To over-simplify: “I support John McCain because of his strong stance in the War on Terror, in spite of the fact that I disagree with some of his voting record in Congress, as long as I can be sure that he has the basic conservatism necessary to not triple my income taxes, try to force mandated health care down all of our throats, and give Texas back to the Mexicans.”) I’m sure David and Scott would have a fun time dreaming up imaginary in spite of and as long as items and asking Denny hypothetically how far he would continue to support a strong CinC who faced significant deficits in the a and b areas. To summarize, I think Denny is, practically speaking, a one-issue voter because to him all other issues pale in comparison to national security ― but only because there is no realistic threat to the as long as side of the equation.

On the other hand, I ask for a quite a bit less nuanced view of the question insofar as David and Scott (open-minded and wide-viewed though they are) still only get to pull the lever once. And as many factors as play into their decision, and as many issues as they find important and pressing in our time, their decision-making formula is still the same as Denny’s: I voted for Candidate Lizard Q because of x, y, and z, in spite of a, and I’ll be happy with that as long as b turns out like I expect it to. And, as much as we wish the opposite were the case, I don’t even think we can count on x, y, and z falling where we want them to. In so many lizards, like in so many other decisions in life, we might line up perfectly on x and y, but end up differing on z, or even agreeing wholeheartedly on x but agreeing to disagree on y and z. All of which makes our vote, that frustratingly binary choice of “him or her?” really at the end of the day always a matter of one issue.

One issue, that is, and the priority which we choose to give to that one issue. It’s easy to find a candidate who agrees with us on our primary x issue, and then be happy because he agrees with us on a couple of other, slightly-less-primary y and z issues too, leaving the less significant a to a “happy inconsistency” and a b or two in the not-bloody-likely column. But if push came to shove (and I’m sure Denny would love to play this game with David and Scott as much as they with him) I’ll bet there is a real, live, potentially-deal-breaking x issue with all of us. It’s the issue we give the highest priority to, and it’s the issue which will ultimately decide our vote.

So quibble with your fellow contributors all you want about the most important, priority-number-one issue in this election. But let’s not waste a bunch of time pretending that, at the end of the day, a one-issue vote is a bad thing. Because we’re all one-issue voters ― and the real one-issue, the one thing that matters more than anything else when we cast our vote, is our own prioritization of our country’s most pressing issue(s).