Like many of our readers, I traveled to Des Moines and Washington, D.C. to advocate for issues. I remember visiting Congressman Dave Loebsack in Washington, shortly after his 2006 election to the Congress with a list of a dozen issues to cover. It was quickly clear which issues most interested him. Because I had gotten to know him during his 2006 campaign, he patiently listened to them all.

Issues-based politics has become a bane to normal political life. People have issues. I have issues with most of them. The Aug. 17 People Over Politics Town Hall Meeting in Shueyville got a burr under my saddle over issues.

Iowa House Democrats surveyed the electorate and developed four issues which most voters, regardless of party affiliation, could support: lower costs for Iowans, supporting Iowa’s public schools, protecting reproductive freedom, and legalizing marijuana. The idea was to use these issues as a wedge to convince more voters to elect a Democrat in a conservative district. State Representatives Amy Nielsen and Elinor Levin did a good job of presenting the premise and walking us through the issues.

“What about water quality?” asked one attendee.

“What about climate change?” asked another.

“What about CO2 pipelines and eminent domain being used by private companies to secure right of way for them?” said someone else.

The representatives gave measured responses to each of these questions, explaining that water quality and climate change, as issues, don’t move voters. With CO2 pipelines and eminent domain issues, both parties are divided in the response. All are important to the future of Iowans. The important part, from my perspective, is moving voters to support a less conservative house or senate candidate. According to the survey, these issues are not particularly useful in doing that.

State Representative Chuck Isenhart asserted on X, “Not being on the list (of four) shouldn’t mean that we don’t talk about them at all.” I agree. I devoted much time in my life to addressing the climate crisis. As much as I want to both elect a Democrat to my house district, and solve the climate crisis, they are different types of endeavors. A basic characteristic of debate over issues is that when one talks about one issue, others are excluded. To win back conservative districts, we need to focus on parts of the Democratic agenda that have broader appeal.

There are multiple ways to cover issues with voters. In the best of circumstances, a canvasser can have a conversation with a voter that leads to a constructive discussion of more than the big four. One has to go beyond them to secure a commitment. If anything, the issues most Iowans can support will be an effective beginning place.

The trouble I have with issues that surfaced in Shueyville is some of the activists lost perspective of a larger strategy. If one comes to politics only when we want something, that is, as a single issue voter, we haven’t differentiated ourselves from many Republicans. We need to win some seats currently held by Republicans. To do that we need to find and focus on common ground that exists, like those four issues the House Democrats identified.

In my experience, abortion is a tough one for compromise. People hold strong positions for or against access to abortion. While the survey shows more than half of Iowans liked the protections of Roe Vs. Wade, for many voters supporting reproductive rights is a deal breaker. Once those voters are identified, it’s time to shut the conversation down, make a note, and move on to the next contact. Single issue voters are unlikely to yield.

A person can get tired of their issues not being addressed by government. Waiting for action is never good. That will continue for Democrats as long as Republicans hold the trifecta. House Democrats are offering a potential path forward.