|
When
one thinks of the presidential election of 1972 a number of images flash to
mind: A landslide victory (or loss, depending on your point of view), Watergate,
“Peace in our time” in Vietnam. Momentous all, but the event many thought would
have the most lasting impact has become, at best, an answer to a trivia
question.
It was
not trivial to me. I turned 18 in November of that year, the first time
18-year-olds were allowed to vote in national elections. Alas I hit the mark a
week and a half late, but the taste of enfranchisement was still heady stuff. I
wasn’t alone; with the activism of the 1960’s still pulsing strong, the nation
braced for a powerful wave of new voters who would move en masse, changing
American politics forever. Politicians scrambled to tap the surge, occasionally
to absurd extremes.
It
played out a lot like the Y2K frenzy nearly three decades later. Despite having
been catered to like few groups in American history, youth turnout was low,
their ballots as scattered and diverse as any. There was no united voice, no
force with which to be reckoned, no legacy of political focus on youth issues.
If there is any message at all whispering down from the 1972 election it might
this: If you don’t ante, you can’t play.
Flash
forward to 2000 and it’s not hard to tell who votes and who doesn’t. It is not
by happenstance that half of this year’s presidential debates were about
Medicare and Social Security. There was a nod to a few incidentals, like
defense, the national debt, and foreign policy, but the real show was about
Social Security and healthcare for seniors. Who, you might have guessed, vote
in droves.
Pandering? You betcha. It’s the American way, though I don’t let it become a
distraction. Whoever wins this election will certainly have to come across with
the pills if he wants to be reelected, but reality has a way of reordering a
President’s priorities. There will still be a country to run, and the next
president wins will have bigger headaches than Medicare.
Despite the possibility of the closest presidential election in decades, many
are predicting a low turnout. Cynicism about the candidates’ promises is cited,
as is the belief that there is no real choice or that it doesn’t make any
difference.
The real culprits,
I suspect, are laziness and ignorance. Harsh words, but so it is. I’ll spare
you the screed on how many fought and died to gain and preserve our right to
vote, but the fact remains that citizens of the United States have more control
over how they are governed than any people in history. One can hardly blame the
politicians if we fail to wield such a tool.
The
candidates do discourage us by packaging their views like kibbles, doling them
out a bit at a time. One kibble begins to look pretty much like the next, but
the fact of the matter is that both major candidates have public records. They
have given speeches, proposed laws and policies, cast votes, and taken stands,
leaving trails that lead to what each believes, who he is, and how he might
govern. With just a little diligence in this “information age,” one can readily
search each man’s political soul.
Election year posturing aside, the two candidates couldn’t be much more
different. OK, they could – think Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader. And go ahead
and think of them if you wish; I am of the opinion that the only vote wasted is
the one not cast. But there are significant differences in the visions of Al
Gore and George W. Bush even if campaign bluster occasionally blurs the line.
“Are
these the best candidates we could scrape up?” has been asked of every
presidential election of my adult life, and probably long before. Maybe they
are and maybe they’re not, but doubt whittles nothing from the vital nature of
the presidency and the challenges the victor will face. We owe it to ourselves
not to ignore them.
© 1997 – 2002 Brent Morrison
|
