Spring Break
Starry-eyed voters don't see clearly
The Traveler Editorial Board
Issue date: 9/12/08 Section: News
The inevitably historic nature of the 2008 presidential election presents an unprecedented opportunity for voters, but it also threatens to engulf their emotions and drown out a conscientious consideration of the issues in a hurricane of anticipation of the novel ending to this election story.
Those who are privileged to witness the 44th president and his vice president take the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, will automatically witness a "first." The first black president or the first female vice president - either prospect is a stirring one, indicative of changes in the sentiments of the U.S. electorate. Voters can stride to the polls, confident that, regardless of whom they vote for, the outcome of the election will be remarkable.
What is not remarkable, however, is the likelihood that many voters will look no further than to the race and gender of the executive candidates to determine their voting criteria. In fact, this is a shame.
Perhaps this is so self-evident as to not be worth stating. After all, it seems to be in human nature to wish to be able to relate to leaders - and to find leaders of the same race or gender more "relatable" (the recent buzz word on Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin).
Or perhaps this is not worth stating because voters like to assume that characteristics beyond the control of the candidates could not possibly account for more in this election than their chosen policies and carefully crafted platforms. Certainly, we like to assume that.
In the end, though, what we would bet all U.S. voters will know about Sen. Barack Obama when they go to the polls is he is black. What all U.S. voters will probably know about Palin is she is a woman.
Even as oft repeated as some of the candidates' political views have been, probably not all U.S. voters will know even that Obama has opposed the war in Iraq since its inception or that Sen. John McCain has consistently supported it.
Not all U.S. voters will know Obama's health care plan proposes an expansion of Medicaid and SCHIP, as well as the creation of a "National Health Insurance Exchange" which would regulate the private insurance industry.
Or that McCain's health care plan would grant tax payers the option of employer-based coverage, as well as place a direct refundable tax credit of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families into the hands of voters to offset the cost of insurance.
Ditto the candidates' positions on the economy, education, immigration and climate change - U.S. voters' probably couldn't quote 'em.
We can't.
Perhaps even more importantly, U.S. voters probably don't know the implications of the candidates' proposed policies.
We don't.
But this is dangerous - because it leaves voters with little more to go on than appearances.
The dizzying riot of TV coverage of the candidates might leave viewers starry-eyed, but it doesn't leave them clear-headed. And, in the end, what voters need to take with them to the polls is exactly that - a clear head.
Those who are privileged to witness the 44th president and his vice president take the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, will automatically witness a "first." The first black president or the first female vice president - either prospect is a stirring one, indicative of changes in the sentiments of the U.S. electorate. Voters can stride to the polls, confident that, regardless of whom they vote for, the outcome of the election will be remarkable.
What is not remarkable, however, is the likelihood that many voters will look no further than to the race and gender of the executive candidates to determine their voting criteria. In fact, this is a shame.
Perhaps this is so self-evident as to not be worth stating. After all, it seems to be in human nature to wish to be able to relate to leaders - and to find leaders of the same race or gender more "relatable" (the recent buzz word on Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin).
Or perhaps this is not worth stating because voters like to assume that characteristics beyond the control of the candidates could not possibly account for more in this election than their chosen policies and carefully crafted platforms. Certainly, we like to assume that.
In the end, though, what we would bet all U.S. voters will know about Sen. Barack Obama when they go to the polls is he is black. What all U.S. voters will probably know about Palin is she is a woman.
Even as oft repeated as some of the candidates' political views have been, probably not all U.S. voters will know even that Obama has opposed the war in Iraq since its inception or that Sen. John McCain has consistently supported it.
Not all U.S. voters will know Obama's health care plan proposes an expansion of Medicaid and SCHIP, as well as the creation of a "National Health Insurance Exchange" which would regulate the private insurance industry.
Or that McCain's health care plan would grant tax payers the option of employer-based coverage, as well as place a direct refundable tax credit of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families into the hands of voters to offset the cost of insurance.
Ditto the candidates' positions on the economy, education, immigration and climate change - U.S. voters' probably couldn't quote 'em.
We can't.
Perhaps even more importantly, U.S. voters probably don't know the implications of the candidates' proposed policies.
We don't.
But this is dangerous - because it leaves voters with little more to go on than appearances.
The dizzying riot of TV coverage of the candidates might leave viewers starry-eyed, but it doesn't leave them clear-headed. And, in the end, what voters need to take with them to the polls is exactly that - a clear head.
Be the first to comment on this story