Before dismissing something as a "pet issue" can we consider why that issue may be important?

[Bjorn Against]

I have heard a lot of talk about people who are only concerned about their pet issues lately, but I have yet to hear someone explain to me exactly what makes something a pet issue. I might understand this line of attack if it were only used against people who focused on issues that were largely irrelevant to the problems this world faces. For example if a person would vote against the candidate who would do more to promote their economic and social well being simply because that candidate did not think they should be able to drive their ATV wherever they want to drive it for example, then yes that may be a case in which a person truly did have a single pet issue that they embraced to the detriment of all others. There are certainly people like this, and there is no doubt that at least here in Minnesota there are a good number of people who vote Republican simply because the Republicans don’t care about the environment and will let them ride their ATVs anywhere they want to no matter how sensitive the wilderness area. A person’s ability to ride an ATV does not have grave social or personal consequences however, no one needs an ATV to survive or live a fulfilling life it is simply something people do for entertainment. If you base your vote on your own personal entertainment it may be appropriate for someone to criticize you for focusing on a pet issue.

The problem is however that the words “pet issues” are not only used to describe issues such as where a person can drive their ATVs, instead we dismiss a lot of very important issues as “pet issues” simply because they may disagree with a position a candidate has taken. I remember the last time Joe Lieberman was running for reelection to the Senate and his supporters were attacking those who had opposed his reelection because of his position on Iraq. They dismissed Iraq as a “pet issue”, they told us Lieberman was good on everything else and those on the left who did not support him were letting a single issue get in the way of everything else. Now never mind the fact that Iraq is not truly the only issue Lieberman has been bad on, instead let's just ask ourselves whether it is really appropriate to dismiss Iraq as a pet issue. A simple test to determine whether Iraq is a pet issue would be to ask yourself, how do you think the mother whose child was killed in Iraq feels about her opposition to the war being called a pet issue?

Iraq is not the only issue I have heard dismissed as a pet issue however, I have heard supporters of many other candidates besides Lieberman dismiss others because of serious disagreements they refer to as “pet issues”. How do you think the person without health insurance feels when a person tells them that their calls for Universal Health Care are nothing more than the cries of someone worried about a pet issue? How do you think the gay couple feels when they are told that their desire to have equal rights under the law is merely a pet issue? How do you think the worker who just had his job shipped to Mexico feels about having NAFTA be called a pet issue? How do you think the homeless mother feels about having her need for welfare benefits being dismissed as a pet issue? There are many serious issues facing this country, and we need to encourage people to get involved in fighting for the issues that matter. To dismiss the important issues facing our nation as “pet issues” is not only wrong, it is immoral. To some people their so-called “pet issue” could mean life or death, it could mean equality or second class citizenship, it could mean economic well being or economic ruin. Most of the issues that are frequently talked about in politics are not “pet issues” and we should be very careful about dismissing them as such.

Can we please start putting some thought into why certain issues may be important to someone before we dismiss them as pet issues?