Voice of Reason: Don’t vote — It just encourages them
With the possible exception of members of the Ku Klux Klan and other assorted racists and bigots, I think most people would agree that Abraham Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents in our history. It is no exaggeration to say that without his leadership ability the United States as we know might not exist.
But for all Lincoln was, there were plenty of things he was not. He was not a handsome man – on the contrary, he was rather gangly and quite unattractive. He was not wealthy. He was not an eloquent speaker. He was not charismatic. No JFK or Ronald Reagan here.
No, if he were alive today and running for the highest office in the land, or even state representative, Abraham Lincoln would get beaten like a rented mule. If fact, he would likely be laughed off the political stage. Why? A person fitting his description, no matter how wise and intelligent, is just not electable.
If there’s one word I’ve heard uttered over and over again during this primary season it’s “electable.”
Well I like so-and-so’s ideas, someone will say, but is he electable? Can he beat Bush? If so how: Is he a veteran? Can he raise a lot of money? Does he say what people want (as opposed to need) to hear? Is he good looking? Is he charismatic? Is he likable? Is he a good speaker? Does he poll well with Soccer Moms and NASCAR Dads?
Seemingly every realistic opponent of the president’s policies, including myself in this very column, has asked these questions when pondering his primary vote this election season.
This is not a new phenomenon, of course. Such concerns and questions have always been raised about candidates, I suppose, but it’s become much more acute since the advent of television, and it’s spawn, the sound-byte. Our attention spans have grown smaller and so has our interest in the public interest.
The result is that our “democracy” has become a farce. Rarely is the best man or woman elected. More often than not, the best man or woman is not even on the ballot, as most intelligent people are not masochistic enough to want to endure the rough and tumble nature of political life.
There are exceptions, of course, but by and large this seems to be the case. And those who honestly do want to serve the public interest always seem to have to compromise themselves or their values in some way in order to make any form of “progress.”
I used to wonder what the reason was behind the apathy surrounding our electoral system, why usually only about half of those eligible to vote do so in this country. But now I’m beginning to understand this other half and I’m beginning to think they might be on to something.
Oftentimes, when a pseudo-democracy holds an “election,” a popular tactic by the opposition is to boycott the election, thereby showing the world the country’s own people consider the election to be a joke. Perhaps a similar feeling is what’s behind our apathy.
When elections are won by candidates who pander to the ignorant masses, who deny their own ideas and say whatever is popular at the moment, it makes our whole electoral system a joke. We’re not getting leaders, we’re getting followers. When people vote without any serious knowledge of the issues and problems facing our country, when they cast their ballots for whomever they think is prettier or nicer, our democracy is in trouble.
So why bother? Why vote at all? So many times these days, at the national level anyway, it doesn’t seem to matter. No matter who wins, the farce continues. And when we vote, it seems to me, we’re just encouraging and legitimizing this corruption of our system of government.
(Will Stewart is a reporter for the Standard. He can be reached at 473-2191 or by e-mail at education@southernstandard.com.)