Austin Hill finally asks a coherent question:
As a writer and talk show host I covered the last presidential election cycle in detail. Hosting daily talk radio in Washington, DC back in 2008, it would become apparent when I was speaking with a faith-based or socially conservative caller to my show because such callers would frequently express concerns over some specific issues with the candidates. “I don’t think McCain is really pro-life” was a common concern. And “Obama says he opposes gay marriage, but I don’t believe him” was another.
To these types of statements about abortion and the definition of marriage, I would often respond with questions about economics, just to see where the discussion would go. “But what do you think of Senator Obama’s plan to raise taxes on rich people and to cut taxes for others – is that fair?” I might ask. Or “Do you think John McCain is right about the stock market crash when he says that it’s all because of ‘greed on Wall Street?’”
Generally speaking, my economic questions would bring these brief talk show conversations to an abrupt end. “I only care about the moral issues” was the response I’d usually hear – as though economic issues are morally neutral or of no moral significance at all – and then the caller would say goodbye.
I have known some conservatives who only vote based upon those matters they consider to be “moral issues” (which usually means abortion or gay marriage, in my experience). What I’ve never understood was how economic matters were never considered to be “moral issues.” The love of money has long been accepted as a root of all kinds of evil, so it’s not like evil can’t occur in economic settings.
In fact, the recent market collapse and market meltdown can reasonably be considered a moral issue, since the housing bubble was caused, in part, by rampant fraud among major banks. The response to the market collapse can also be considered a moral issue since the government took, by force, money from hardworking citizens and handed it over to crooks who had built an empire of lies. How are these matters not moral issues?
Yet, there will undoubtedly be some who feel compelled to make gay marriage and abortion the decisive factors in their voting in spite of the facts that a) gays cannot do more damage to the institution of marriage than feminists already have b) the abortion battle has already been lost and was always in one sense unwinnable.* To these people I ask: how much more evil has to occur in a market setting before economics become a moral issue?
* Even if Roe v. Wade were reversed for being unconstitutional (which it is), this does not mean that all states would turn around and ban abortion. Furthermore, even if abortion were banned, there would still be a black market for it. This should be construed to mean that the battle should not be fought, only that those fighting it need to know their limits.
