Other Columns by Mike Bayham
Mike Bayham Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

The Apathetic and the Blind Partisans
By Mike Bayham
August 1, 2002

During my 28 years on Earth and past 22 as an observer of world and national events, I have noticed that there are two kinds of people that have plagued the course of public discussion and have had a negative effect on the democratic pillars of the republic.

The first group are the apathetic, also known as those that don't give a damn, and the second are the blind partisans who simply damn their opponents rather than debate them. Though I will later give a specific example for the latter, there is no need to name a specific person for those that are apathetic since most of the United States fits into this category.

We see evidence of mass apathy with the low voter turnout that is almost a trademark of any local, state, and national election in America. Considering that the United States is the most powerful country in the world and that the choice of its leader could have an impact on both the entire country and globe, it is amazing that over half of the nation's registered voters decide to literally sit out the presidential elections.

Even more disappointing about the state of participation in the political process is when you factor in the people who aren't registered to vote, which brings the real level of voting lower. One wonders if citizens of other countries, mindful of the important role America plays in international affairs and who take the "great arsenal of democracy" more seriously than our own citizens do, would rather vote in our elections than their own.

So why don't people vote on Election Day? Some say that they don't vote because they don't like the candidates while others state that they simply do not have enough time in the day to vote. I suppose the "busy worker" doesn't see the irony in their own complaint because they end up having to work more to fund the property millage that passed that they did not vote against.

Regrettably, there are organizations out there that buy into the "too busy" argument and have advocated measures to make the process of voting a more "comfortable" and "convenient" experience. These "reforms" include voting via Internet, extended absentee voting periods, and voting by mail. In truth, the only reform that would need to be made is extending voting hours on Election Day with all of the cited changes likely creating a greater problem than the current lack of participation in voting.

However the cited reasons for not being able to vote are code words for laziness on the part of an electorate that is indifferent to the government and their community. That none of the candidates inspire visions of Sir Benjamin Disraeli, Pitt the Younger and William Gladstone is a poor excuse from neglecting at a bare minimum choosing the lesser of two or more evils. It is a rare when there a scenario in which one candidate would truly be no better or worse than the other.

The second group, the unobjective partisans, are in some respects worse than the lazy people since their participation has been cited in polls as discouraging people from voting. The partisans I am referring to are on both sides of the political aisle though they all blindly follow the party line and have lost (or voluntarily suspended) their ability to discern right from wrong.

These people substitute well-reasoned arguments and altruism for insults and evasion. In their minds, having the last word is better than making the best case. They also feel that they are right and that their adversaries are not only wrong, but are also evil. Furthermore, they tend to be unwilling to engage in discussion despite their claims of being tolerant.

I had a run in with one of these types when I received my first piece of "hate mail" a month ago from, of all people, the husband of my former first grade teacher regarding a proposal to rename a public building after a prominent local resident who was in charge of its construction. "Unfortunately" for the preservation of the good name and legacy of the engineer, he had also served in the Confederate army as a general. Despite his many accomplishments before the War Between the States and afterwards, his service under the "stars and bars" had become a scarlet letter in his eyes and allowed it to cloud the engineer's achievements.

The letter, from Mr. Steven S. Marcotte of Metairie, Louisiana opened with the following: "During your Ferncrest and Lynn Oaks years, you projected yourself as a juvenile smartass. In the subsequent 20 years you have matured little and are now an adult smartass."

Mr. Marcotte continued on for two additional paragraphs citing selected instances of this general's record in the war and totally ignored his antebellum and postwar activities. He then closed calling my resolution "stupid." I would like to inform those reading this that despite his adolescent tone, the man that wrote me is a senior citizen, proving that one is only as mature as they behave.

Having been sincere in my well researched proposal, I decided to call Mr. Marcotte to discuss the matter. After first speaking with his wife, my former teacher, who decried my "right wing beliefs" as being intolerant and that I need to be more "centrist in my thinking," Mr. Marcotte took the phone and simply hung up opting to not confront the person he took to task via the mail.

There are plenty of "Steven Marcottes" out there that feel a moral obligation to dish it out but lack the stomach, confidence or patience to take it in. Some of these folks have "R's" by their name while others have "D's." For some reason I have found that this group has more liberal voices than conservative, though I will let you speculate on the reasons for this imbalance.

In any event, that the lazy people form a large bloc of the American electorate while the "sound bite artists" rule the roost in the arena of public discussion are serious problems.

Today, we live in a nation where there are many taxpayers that would rather watch trailer park queens do battle on Jerry Springer than take a few minutes out of their day to lower their taxes or select a person that could change the quality of life in their community for the better. This is not helped when discussions on the issues of the day resemble more the confrontations on the Springer show than the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

I fear that one day, I am going to be watching a political debate on television (with a record low audience) and one of the candidates is going to rebut his opponent's argument with "your mama!" Political participation and discourse in modern American society is a far cry from the days of Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John Calhoun in both time and quality, though not for the better.