July 20, 2004
Kamloops Daily News



It's getting harder to convince Canadians to vote.  No
wonder.  The competition is tough.

Voter turnout has been dropping since the 1960s.  It's
especially bad in youths, only 25 per cent of whom  bother to
vote.

Greg Hughes, aged 26, says politicians don't address his
concerns.  "How can you expect young people to vote when our
interests are rarely, if ever, represented in governing?" 
What matters to youths is affordable education, getting a
good job, fair wages, and the environment.

The so-called big election issue - -health care - - hardly
registers.  Health care matters to baby boomers and their
aging parents, but youths have more pressing concerns.

Things have been getting worse for youths, not better. 
Wages have been steadily dropping since the 1970s and
tuition rates going up. Politicians talk about protecting
the environment but their promises are soon blown in the
wind.

TV plays a big role in the lives of youths and the
impression they get of politicians is not flattering. The
common stereotype is not the kind of folks you would
want to have over for supper.

One study of American TV shows found that politicians were
twice as likely to be portrayed in a negative light, rather
than positive.  One notable exception is the series West
Wing.  How can youths take politicians seriously when they
are usually portrayed as incompetent and corrupt? 

Celebrity worship on TV inflates the significance of stars
beyond reason.  Youths would rather listen to media icons
who have no other redeeming feature other than they look
good.  As a result, they are more likely to know Brittney
Spears' position on the invasion of Iraq than Prime Minister
Martins' (although all voters have justifiable reasons to be
unclear about that).

The influence of the Me Generation of the 1980s is alive
and well.  This ideology emphasizes the acquisition of
material goods and wealth.  The power of the in the
marketplace is supreme.  Economies rise and fall based on
how much money is spent by consumers on stuff they don't
need or can't afford.

Governments spend money too.  Thus, a tension develops
between money spent for the public good and money in the
hands of the individual.  A prospective voter might ask  "If
I can buy anything I need, what's the purpose of
government?" and "Why do governments take so much of my
money when I could be shopping?"

Right-wing governments have used the language of consumerism
to promote their agendas.   When politicians talk about
"choice," for example, it's a code word for privatization
of public services.

Choice in health care, for example, means the ability to
purchase health care from a variety of sources - - much in
the way that you would shop for shoes. 

The political consequence of choice is that governments can
sell off government services, balance budgets and by
lowering taxes, claim that they are putting money back into
the pockets the citizens.  This is the garage-sale model of
government where public goods and services are sold at
bargain prices.

It doesn't seem to matter that we will pay more for
privatized services and that collectively, we will be worse
off.

Such self-destructive governments present an paradox to
voters.  Jeffery Ewener, radio commentator, sums it up this
way "Youths feel like they are being seduced by eunuchs." 
Elected politicians have spent the past decade emasculating
government and  reducing the number of areas in which they,
or their successors, can be effective.   

Why should voters participate in building government when
the very politicians they elect believe that government
should be dismantled?

An extension of the new ethos of individualism is what
Professor Frank Furedi calls "therapeutic culture."  
Citizens are encouraged to believe that their social
problems are really personal problems.  It's the kind of
popular psychology often advanced in daytime TV shows.

In therapeutic culture,  individuals are encouraged to
interpret poverty, illness, and systemic discrimination as
problems to be solved through self-reflection, not through
government.

Individualism and government are parallel lines that 
intersect at the voter.  One system sees the voter as a
shopper, and as an individual who can solve inequality
through self therapy.  The other sees the voter as a
participant in democracy.

Politicians must convince non-voters that a strong
government, in which all members of society participate,
is solution to their problems.  It's going to be a hard
sell.

go back to my Columns in the