Running a close second to the ubiquitous debate over the war in
Iraq, the ripest topic of the upcoming election may be what many
now call “wedge issues.” Hearing a news anchor address them, it may
be explaining why President George W. Bush leads in the polls.
Listening to a commentator debate them, quite often it’s with a
sneer and palpable dissent.

What is a wedge issue? Well, abortion is a wedge issue; gay
marriage is another; one could even call Archbishop Raymond Burke
the human manifestation of a wedge issue–for Catholics, at least.
So it’s not easy to nail down the etymology or one clear
definition. Perhaps, then, the more appropriate question: How would
one who uses the term define it? Most would probably say it’s a
topic that causes a voter to stray from a candidate they would
otherwise support–to drive a “wedge” between them. Something few
dwelled over in the past, it has become a mulling point, not to
mention a commonality among journalistic use this election season.
Wedge issues are everywhere.

However, there exists a different and troublesome side effect
that surfaces behind usage of the term, if intended or not. It aids
in making the already obtuse verbosity of the political lexicon
even more dense. In additional, further neutralizing of terms,
which are already castrated of emotive value, “wedge issue” creates
another convenient catchall, shifting crucial matters onto more
sterile terminology.

Maybe this is why many liberal commentators so quickly warmed up
to the idea. On last weekend’s Real Time, Bill Maher said outright,
“this is an election of wedge issues,” explaining how Kerry could
possibly be losing the race. To some, it seems this leverage is the
only means to Bush’s success.

The implication inappropriately suggests these wedge issues
cause some to vote against their best interests. And these are
individuals who should be voting Democrat but were duped by
Republicans, once again. It’s true that far more people will jump
the fence to the Republican stance on the issue. Also true, voters
who reason, “I like the entirety of the Bush agenda; but I just
can’t vote for him because he opposes abortion,” are rare to
non-existent.

However, it’s painfully apparent which party is more myopic and
stagnant in respect to uniformity on life issues. Speaking in
August’s Republican National Convention was Rudy Giuliani, the
pro-abortion former mayor of New York City, as well as California
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who recently signed over a
significant amount of state funds dedicated to stem-cell research.
Some Republicans would say it is an unfortunate turn for members of
their party–but it clearly illustrates something beyond these
wedge issues that drives voters to the right.

Furthermore, should individuals who are supposedly better suited
to vote Democrat based on economic considerations decide to turn to
a Republican candidate because they oppose abortion, stem-cell
research, or gay marriage–what of it? These are things real people
care about, transcending their pocket book or anyone else’s. No one
is being driven away from his or her best interests by choosing to
vote on these topics; essentially, because these issues are, in
their eyes, the best interests.

In this election, Kerry has attempted to create some wedge
issues of his own. There is the middle-class, whom he would have
one believe includes everyone who doesn’t drive a Bentley. There’s
his health care plan, which the senator defends with the skill of a
Ford Yugo salesman, “Seriously folks, this is not a government
plan. It will work.” He even brought out Ronald Reagan to push
embryonic stem-cell research on his behalf–but his lack of passion
for speaking at the Democratic National Convention was as apparent
as his lack of credible, supportive facts. For Democrats, so-called
wedge issues just don’t typically work–perhaps explaining the
strong push to attach the term to a negative connotation. The only
wedge that may lead to Kerry’s success is a collective, utter
disdain for President Bush.

So, in terms of playing to the wedge voters, do Republicans
unfairly posture themselves in order to take advantage of this
unconditional, single-issue dithering? Before answering that,
consider: Which candidate anchors these wedge issues as a sincere
basis for their support?

To find a more flippant position on gay marriage, a tenuous
justification of abortion, or an alarming lack of evidential matter
supporting stem-cell research, one need look no further than John
Kerry.

If these are issues are of real interest to voters, as they
acknowledge, Democrats would be well-served in establishing a more
rational grounding.

Instead, they appear to be taking the typical route of morphing
a losing issue into divisive Republican politics–in turn, the
wedge grows ever wider.

Bert Seefeldt is a senior studying accounting and
English.