When every election is ‘the most important of our lives’

Another election cycle, another round of hysteria. Let me guess: this is the “most important election of our lifetime.”

Wipe this article away and reread it in a few years, and that will be the new “most important election of our lifetimes,” when half the nation acts as if it knows exactly what is best for the nation.

When was the last time an election was just an election, and not “the most important election of our lifetime”? When was the last time the candidates were just candidates, and not God’s candidate against the devil’s? Political hyperbole is in a perpetual cycle of rinse and repeat, and America is exhausted.

This copy-and-paste phrase has become a ubiquitous battle cry. The rhetoric, which has been used for two centuries, raises the stakes of each election cycle and creates a sense of urgency and existential threat among voters. The repeated invocation of this phrase has led to sensational fatigue, with the electorate becoming desensitized to hyperbolic claims about the meaning of elections.

The phrase “the most important election of our lifetimes” can be traced back to at least the early 1800s, with its first notable use in 1805 during a Pennsylvania gubernatorial race. It has since been repurposed in various forms, often during crucial elections (which seems to be every election these days), to boost voter turnout by suggesting that the future of democracy depends on the outcome. This tactic has been employed by politicians from Abraham Lincoln to Kamala Harris to Donald Trump to whoever will be next, framing their campaigns as existential battles for the soul of the country.

The continued use of this phrase creates a cycle of sensationalism that leads to voter fatigue. Every election cycle, voters are bombarded with messages that carry dire consequences if their candidate doesn’t win. This rhetoric often overshadows substantive discussions about policy and governance, as the focus shifts to apocalyptic scenarios rather than constructive dialogue. As a result, voters feel overwhelmed by the constant barrage of high-stakes stories, leading to emotional exhaustion and disengagement from the political process.

The psychological effects of sensationalism are profound. Research shows that the stress associated with political anxiety can lead to several health problems, including sleep disorders and chronic diseases. A Pew Research Center survey found that a significant portion of the U.S. population feels exhausted and angry when thinking about politics, with 65% regularly reporting feelings of fatigue related to political discourse. This emotional toll can result in a sense of helplessness, with individuals feeling like their participation in the electoral process is futile, further exacerbating political apathy.

The implications of sensationalism extend beyond individual well-being; they threaten the democratic process. When voters become desensitized to the urgency of an election, they may choose to withdraw altogether, thinking their votes don’t matter. This withdrawal could lead to lower electoral turnout, undermining the democratic principle of representation. Historically, U.S. election turnout has been lower than that of many other democracies. The sensationalization of elections can contribute to this trend by promoting the belief that every election is a crisis, leading to burnout rather than mobilization.

Promoting a more balanced discourse around elections is essential to combat sensationalism. Politicians and news media should strive to provide context and nuance in their reporting, focusing on the issues at stake rather than resorting to hyperbolic claims. Encouraging civic engagement and debate through community engagement and local initiatives can shift the focus from national crises to actionable steps individuals can take to bring about change in their communities.

Promoting a more measured approach to political discourse can help restore confidence in the electoral system and encourage meaningful participation in democracy.

The likelihood of a more measured approach is not promising. Candidates in different parties are not as different as they pretend to be, and so must appeal to the emotions of the electorate rather than the intellect. Election cycle after election cycle, broken promise after broken promise, everything seems to remain the same as we postpone substantive policy and governance issues until the next election cycle, then the next, and then the next.

Don’t worry, this election is different. This election is the ‘most important election of our lives’, … just like the last one, the election before that and the election before that.

Nafees Alam is a professor of social work at Boise (Idaho) State University/InsideSources