Archive

ShareThis Page
Cranking up the demagoguery | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

Cranking up the demagoguery

Tribune-Review
| Tuesday, November 4, 2014 10:00 p.m

It used to be that the first Tuesday in November was Election Day, but now it is the last day of Election Month.

Election Month is bad, but it’s a symptom of a deeper problem that makes the underlying problem worse. The deeper problem is that we simultaneously expect too much and too little of casting a ballot. See, for instance, actress Lena Dunham’s “5 Reasons Why I Vote (and You Should Too)” on Planned Parenthood’s website. Reason No. 1: “When you vote, you feel so, so good.”

“You will have the best day just because you voted,” she writes. “I wore fishnets and a little black dress to vote, then walked around with a spring in my slinky step. It lasted for days.”

Of all the reasons one should vote, using ballots as a balm to cure low self-esteem has to be the most pathetic. But it is reason No. 5 that gets to the heart of the problem. Dunham writes that “voting is kind of a gateway drug to ‘getting involved.’”

This is a widely held view, but even if voting boosted civic participation, the very idea puts the cart before the horse. Voting should come at the end of civic engagement, not at the beginning.

It’s amusing to note that Dunham, who could also be seen dancing in her dingy underwear for a Rock the Vote video that encouraged young people to vote (and vote liberal) in Tuesday’s midterms, never actually voted in the previous midterm elections. At least when George Foreman appears in an infomercial, you can assume he’s actually used his own grill.

Both political parties were determined to boost turnout among “low-propensity voters,” a euphemism for people who don’t care very much about politics. Naturally, this often means they also don’t know very much about politics. As a result, the pros must tell them their votes matter more than they do. That’s why the Georgia Democratic Party distributed fliers to black voters suggesting that a vote for the Republicans would somehow cause a replay of the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.

In Colorado, NARAL Pro-Choice America ran an ad insisting that a vote for the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate would lead to a ban on women’s birth control and, as a result, a critical condom shortage.

If you hadn’t been paying attention, you might not have known that the Republican candidate, Rep. Cory Gardner, actually favored making birth control available over the counter. That’s forgivable ignorance. But if you think a single senator from a single state can ban birth control (never mind that he doesn’t want to), then you are so staggeringly clueless about how our political system works, you shouldn’t vote at all.

Now, it’s entirely true that the practice of inflating the stakes of an election was old when Periclean Athens was young, but making it so much easier to vote — over such a long period — exacerbates the problem by giving campaigns a whole month for rolling, targeted demagoguery.

“Vote first, ask questions later” is not a mantra of good citizenship. It’s a marketing strategy designed to reward politicians for voters’ ignorance.

Jonah Goldberg is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior editor of National Review.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.