The Monomaniac

     Have you heard the phrase “one-issue voter?” It was more prevalent some years back. It refers, of course, to the citizen so concerned with a single issue in public policy that literally nothing else matters to him when he considers candidates for public office. In other words, he’s a policy monomaniac.

     There have always been one-issue voters, and there always will be. The logic to it is fairly simple: If Smith believes that the whole of the Republic could stand or fall according to the government’s decisions about this one issue, then that issue deserves to be paramount. Nothing else matters nearly as much.

     Problems arise when there are lots of issues that have plausible claims to paramount status. In a Constitutional federated republic such as the United States, I could tick off about a thousand such topics, but that arises from my monomania, about which I’ll say more in a moment.

     There are monomaniacs of many varieties. For example, just now we have a gaggle of folks who are anti-Trump monomaniacs. They don’t think of themselves that way. We who value President Trump’s fighting stance for his convictions and his agenda have other terms for them as well.

     As I said, I too am a monomaniac of sorts. My monomania is about constitutionalism: the doctrine that there must be a Supreme Law to which all other law is subordinate. Your monomania, if you have one, may vary. But I’m not relentless about it, though I was when I was much younger. In ordinary conversation with others, I strive not to seem monomaniacal about it. Rather, I look for points of contact that offer the possibility of getting the other person to see things as I see them.

     The relentless monomaniac is a tiring fellow. You can’t really talk to him; you can only agree or disagree with him. At parties he’s the one everyone strives to avoid engaging. On the Web he’s unable to talk about anything but his obsession. There are quite a few such on the Web.

     There aren’t many folks who actually think about politics. I’m not sure things were ever much different. Whatever the case, it’s a lamentable state of affairs. A little hard thought could ameliorate (NB: not “solve”) a lot of problems. But hard thought, like hard work, isn’t many people’s idea of fun. It certainly doesn’t appeal to the relentless monomaniac.

     I struck a site from the Liberty’s Torch blogroll this morning because I’ve grown tired of the proprietor’s monomania. All he needs is the barest hint, the mere whisper that you’re on the wrong side of his pet issue, and he’ll call you everything but white. Moreover, he “shoots from the lip” without knowing anything about the person of whom he’s speaking. In my book that’s close to unforgivable.

     If you must be a monomaniac – and it’s possible, at least in theory, that all stances formed from sincere conviction must ultimately be monomaniacal – please don’t be a relentless or humorless one. It would render me unable to read your ventings. I value my Web reading list, especially in the early morning when I’m casting about for the subject for the day’s tirade.

     Most important for today’s exercise in character improvement, don’t go talking trash about people you don’t know anything about. Leave that sort of shit-slinging to the Leftists.