This is a truly fascinating portrait of the people who decide our elections: the sainted undecided voters. I encourage every idealistic person who is enthralled by the virtues of democracy to work at a polling station in a less-than-affluent area; it will be eye-opening to say the least.
According to the writer Chris Hayes, these are people that are sometimes irrational, atavistic, ill informed, and a bit fatalistic. All I can say is: Freedom is On the March!
Hayes writes:
Perhaps the greatest myth about undecided voters is that they are undecided because of the “issues.” That is, while they might favor Kerry on the economy, they favor Bush on terrorism; or while they are anti-gay marriage, they also support social welfare programs. Occasionally I did encounter undecided voters who were genuinely cross-pressured–a couple who was fiercely pro-life, antiwar, and pro-environment for example–but such cases were exceedingly rare. More often than not, when I asked undecided voters what issues they would pay attention to as they made up their minds I was met with a blank stare, as if I’d just asked them to name their favorite prime number.
The majority of undecided voters I spoke to couldn’t name a single issue that was important to them. . . .
At first I thought this was a problem of simple semantics–maybe, I thought, “issue” is a term of art that sounds wonky and intimidating, causing voters to react as if they’re being quizzed on a topic they haven’t studied. So I tried other ways of asking the same question: “Anything of particular concern to you? Are you anxious or worried about anything? Are you excited about what’s been happening in the country in the last four years?”
These questions, too, more often than not yielded bewilderment. As far as I could tell, the problem wasn’t the word “issue”; it was a fundamental lack of understanding of what constituted the broad category of the “political.” The undecideds I spoke to didn’t seem to have any intuitive grasp of what kinds of grievances qualify as political grievances. Often, once I would engage undecided voters, they would list concerns, such as the rising cost of health care; but when I would tell them that Kerry had a plan to lower health-care premiums, they would respond in disbelief–not in disbelief that he had a plan, but that the cost of health care was a political issue. It was as if you were telling them that Kerry was promising to extend summer into December.
As for the “category of the political,” it could be said Mr. Hayes and people of his political persuasion (the left) had a lot to do with merging and then ending the distinction of political and personal issues. No wonder voters are confused; Hayes wants them to connec their personal problems to the outstretched hand of the Nanny State.
It used to be fundamentally a personal esponsibility as an adult to get a job, take care of yourself, plan for the future, and the like. Government was supposed to be concerned with issues of collective impact such as war, infrastructure, and crime. But from FDR on, government increasingly appeared as a surrogate father figure that would protect us from the ups and downs of life. I guess some folks just haven’t gotten the memo.
Subscribe To This Feed
Hayes prefers to dodge the obvious question as to whether some people are just too stupid to be allowed to vote. Given that it might involve disenfranchising a large part of the ethnic minorities, it could be a case of cognitive dissonance.
Good point. It would have that function, but it also exclude lots of whites (probably numerically more). It would be a salutary measure but impossible in today’s climate.
[...] Perhaps most thought-provoking is the idea that these undecided voters are just civic-minded enough to vote, but not enough to actually care. [...]
How about the myth of McCain’s national security credentials?
http://www.walter-c-uhler.com/Reviews/intervention.html