The value of thinking before voting

Forty-three years ago Marie Cooney, a 5th grade teacher at Helen Keller Middle School, prepared her students for their first election by earnestly instructing them to listen carefully to what each candidate for the Student Council had to say. “This is not a popularity contest,” she intoned in her most serious voice as she urged us to vote with our heads and not with our hearts. “It’s far more important than that.” As 10-year-olds were required to do back then, we listened to her advice quietly and respectfully. Then we all voted for the kids we liked best.

Miss Cooney undoubtedly meant what she said; she may have even believed it. But today voters in state and national elections are still human beings, albeit older ones than those who voted for HKMS 5th grade representatives in 1967. And human beings still tend to vote for candidates they like, or in these contentious times for whomever they dislike least.

Despite the well-intentioned efforts of Miss Cooney and others like her, America’s elections in the 21st century undeniably are popularity contests. But in 1967 candidates vied to make voters like them. Current electoral strategists aim at the lowest common denominator, bombarding them with deceptive and inflammatory misinformation in order to impel potential voters to distrust, fear, and even hate any and all of a given candidate’s opponents. Mainers don’t yet know the identity of their next governor, nor whether either or both of their two current delegates to Congress will be returning to Washington.

But at least it’s certain that tomorrow the state’s print media and airwaves will finally be free of the mud-slinging, character-assassinating political ads that have assaulted the senses of state residents non-stop for the past few months. There’s no way of knowing exactly how many voters were swayed by these insults to their collective intelligence, but it’s likely that negative campaigning disgusts thoughtful, rational people with the entire electoral process far more than it attracts them to whatever message(s) a particular candidate is trying to convey with such tactics.

Both Democrats and Republicans have put together some reprehensible attempts at persuasion, but at least they’ve had the guts to identify themselves. Whoever was behind “The Cutler Files,” an Internet site devoted solely to attacking independent gubernatorial candidate Eliot Cutler, has descended to a previously unattained level of cowardice. Even the infamous Swift Boaters of 2004, whose scurrilous videos concerning John Kerry’s Vietnam service may well have helped George W. Bush win a second term as president, had the spine necessary to claim credit for the distortions, misrepresentations, and misinformation they were spreading. While the identity of whoever has been savaging Mr. Cutler with a series of unverifiable charges and insults is unknown, one thing is indisputable: Whoever it is lacks backbone, not to mention even the slightest concern with ethics. Like anonymous letter-writers, individuals who attack others from behind an electronic cloak of anonymity rank about three levels below “craven” on the courage scale. If money and power lust weren’t behind the multi-billion dollar political persuasion industry we’d all be a lot better off. Were political ads appeals to reason rather than emotion, people might actually think rationally once inside a voting booth. And what levelheaded, clear-thinking citizens might consider prior to casting a ballot is: “When was the last time I based a decision on anger or irritation rather than on reason? And how did that work out?”

Tomorrow America’s public servants nominally go back to actually governing. And how quickly both major parties get down to the important business of legislating (as opposed to jockeying for position in 2012) will go a long way toward determining whether we’re going to get effective state and federal government over the next two to four years.

Political polarization is currently hamstringing the United States. Republicans have been sabotaging President Obama since the day he was elected, and given the current climate there’s no reason to believe Democrats wouldn’t behave similarly toward President Romney, President Pawlenty, or (God forbid) President Palin were the GOP to regain control of the White House in two years. Mainers should consider that before taking aim politically at the state’s new governor, who will likely take office having garnered far less than 50 percent of the total votes cast. Wouldn’t it be best for everyone if the Blaine House’s new occupant, regardless of political affiliation, actually succeeds in improving the quality of life here?

For far too long politicians and their campaign architects have compelled voters to unwittingly choose between the government we need and the government we deserve. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if our newest elected officials put public service ahead of political affiliation? Were that actually the case perhaps what we need and what we deserve wouldn’t be two entirely different things.

Sign In: