John Deeth is fed up with “narrow-focus ‘progressives’ [who] apply tests of absolute purity on their pet issues,” and in so doing “lost touch with bigger picture values.” The hard-fought Democratic primary for Johnson County supervisor was Deeth’s trigger. Some locals are trying to oust Supervisor Janelle Rettig over a 2013 zoning vote. Deeth thinks it’s unfair to toss out a longtime progressive leader over one issue.

I haven’t closely followed the Johnson County campaign. I think highly of Rettig and Mike Carberry, one of the other Democratic candidates, but know too little about the other candidates to form an opinion. I think it’s reasonable and even admirable for people to be concerned about land use, and specifically the rampant suburban sprawl that is swallowing farmland in growing metro areas like Iowa City. We’ve got too much retail space per capita already, as well as vacant lots in many cities, but it seems like every time you turn around there’s another strip mall or subdivision going in on prime farmground. That’s not a narrow-focus issue from my perspective, even if some of the Johnson County activists are motivated by a Not In My Backyard syndrome.

Deeth’s diatribe against narrow-focus progressives caught my attention because he has been known to support city council candidates over single issues such as the 21-only bar rule or the importance of having student representation in Iowa City’s local government. CORRECTION: Deeth says he’s never cast a single-issue vote against an incumbent because of the local ordinance keeping people under age 21 out of bars.

Single-issue voters often look ridiculous when you don’t share their passion. I remember talking with a frustrated political volunteer who was spending a general election season in Iowa. He was sick of nurses who line up with Democrats on almost all the issues (health care, safety net spending, education, etc.) but planned to keep voting Republican because they were anti-choice. I couldn’t disagree with them more on the choice issue, but who am I to say their priorities are wrong? They are adults and have the right to decide what’s most important in a candidate.

I’m rarely in a position to consider becoming a single-issue voter, because most of the time one candidate clearly aligns more with me on a wide range of policies. I’d never vote out an incumbent for the sole reason that s/he didn’t support letting 19-year-olds hang out with their friends in college bars. On the other hand, I have voted for or against Windsor Heights City Council candidates based solely on whether they favor new sidewalks. I don’t care if you’re a wonderful person and good Democrat and dedicated volunteer anymore–you’re not getting my vote in Windsor Heights unless you recognize that putting sidewalks on some key streets would improve safety, public health, and the quality of life. There’s no way to move forward besides replacing one or more city council members. If that’s unfair to some otherwise good public servants, so be it.

What do you think, Bleeding Heartland readers? Are you or have you ever been a single-issue voter? Would any one mistake inspire you to vote out an otherwise solid incumbent?