Egocentric Voters

How do we decide who to vote for? Do we vote for who our parents vote for? Do we research each candidate and their individual policy plans and try to make the best informed decision possible? While these are all plausible answers, there is something else that invariably must be taken into account…personal experiences. More often than not, people are going to engage in politics because of something that either personally happened to them, or because they want something to change that will personally make their lives better. Of course people are going to be more likely to go out and vote if they believe that it will better their own lives…so to get people more politically engaged we should ask them to think/talk about their own personal political stories?

This egocentric approach to voting is one that I find very interesting, and one that makes complete sense if you think about it. Under this argument, I would say that people focus on themselves to explain and understand public policy issues, for example I would think that because I changed all the light bulbs in my house to CFL’s, I am going to only vote for someone that is environmentally conscious, and further, I believe that because I have had this experience, everyone else has too. That is one flaw with this egocentric approach to politics…just because it helped you, does not mean that it will help everyone else. Not only do people make policy decisions based on their own experiences, but they also collect data through personal experiences. For example, if I have a friend that lived in New Orleans and her home still has not been re-built, I would assume that most houses in New Orleans have also not been re-built and that the government is doing nothing. I find this point slightly scary. I am not sure how I feel about people using their experiences to gather data and make assumptions about certain situations…but I also do understand that this is human nature.

People are definitely most engaged or passionate about something when it directly affects, or has affected, them…whether that be politics or what have you. While I understand this egocentric approach from a voter’s point of view, I am not sure how comforting it is. Of course you want to use your own opinions to make a decision, but you should also be informed about what is going on in the world around you. Also, I am afraid that this approach to politics makes people even more cynical than they already are about Washington and the people running this country. Everyone has a grievance but never anything positive to say in return. It gets old hearing everyone complain about how the government screwed them over, or how the President is running this country into the ground. While I may agree, I wish that politics could have a brighter outlook. I wish that people were still idealistic enough to believe that they can change things in this country, that there is an optimistic future ahead of us. However, I think that as long as voters are only thinking about themselves this will never happen. We have to start thinking about the bigger picture and our fellow citizens, not just what we want. With all this being said, I do have faith for the future...and I hope everyone else does too.

What is Too Far?

With the ever increasing advancements in technology, national campaigns are evolving into an all access affair, not necessarily a source of basic information. When TV ads were first used in the 1950s, the nation was reveling in this new advancement with a sense of awe because at this point it was simply another medium through which the candidate could reach out to the public. However, with the continued advancements of such mediums as TV and the introduction of the internet, the ethics of political journalism are quickly becoming muddied. This is especially true among the last few weeks of the current campaign, when the question what is too far has been arising more and more.

For example, should Hillary Clinton be open to comments about her husband’s extra marital affairs, or further, should her daughter be forced to deal with these issues simply because the media feels like it is their duty to report these “news events” to the public? Unfortunately, the way our current media environment is set up the only real concern is who makes money and what sells. This desire of the media to be economically successful drives their decisions to find stories that will grab the attention of the public and sell more newspapers, and these sadly tend to be the juicy personal stories, not public policy speeches.

While this gatekeeping function of the media tends to leave people with less hard news and more editorial type reports, it also has greater implications for the voters of America. Too often voters become cynical and annoyed with the whole election process, which in turns, leads to voter apathy. This is extremely obvious right now and the current media situation surrounding the campaign. It is fair to say that political journalists feel that they have run out of newsworthy stories to publish, so they are simply creating some. The stories that have came out lately are absolutely ridiculous, and maybe instead of seeing this “lull” in news stories as an opportunity to create events, reporters could focus on the actual policies of the candidates…but would people really read these articles?

Although we always hear people complaining about the media, they are that way because of the American public. American citizens are hungry for the personal stories, so they determine what sells by feeling this way. If more people would be interested in concrete facts perhaps the media would change, but who knows? Either way, the media has been absurd lately, and the question what is too far needs to be asked a few more times.