Forty-plus years ago, I was a college student living in the Phi Delta Theta house at MIT, when the news broke that you could play certain Beatles songs backwards and a message could be heard that indicated that Paul McCartney was, in fact, dead. Despite the fact that, had he indeed died, there would have been instant round-the-world news, this rumor swept the country, and my brothers and I spent a little too much time playing Beatles records backwards looking for corroborating messages.
Paul is, of course, still alive in 2014. However, that didn't stop dozens of college students and others who should have better things to do, to try to listen to Revolution and hear things that simply weren't there.
So what, then to make of Barack Obama going in front of the ladies and gentlemen of the press this week and saying the curious line, " ... and to the two thirds of voters who chose not to participate, I hear you, too"?
Much like the "Paul is dead" thing of the early '70s, we are being asked to hear things that weren't said. That, as the not-late Mr. McCartney's family can attest, is pretty dangerous.
The president did not specify what he actually heard them say, and since this was a prepared speech, we can assume he specifically meant not to translate the silence for the assembled press. But he certainly intended to convey a message, and I will happily translate for you: "Those of you who didn't vote are the ones who love me and agree with my policies, but you were too busy doing real important stuff to be able to make it to the polling place."
So let's ask ourselves, first, why two-thirds of voters didn't come out. Let me start with this -- California, New York, Florida, Ohio ... none of these high-voter states even had a Senate race; Texas had a non-competitive race (John Cornyn was to be reelected with little competition) although an interesting (though equally non-competitive) governor's race. Hardly any House races are very competitive any more. So there are indeed a few very populous states with little incentive for the voters to show up. What are we to make of that?
It scares me that Barack Obama hears the non-vote of someone living in a state with no Senate race (a third of states had none) and a non-competitive House race (few of the 400+ House races were really competed), and makes any determination as to her intent.
Here's an example. In 2012, Obama won California's electoral vote, carrying the state in a presidential election at the same time as a Senate seat was up. The total voting in California was on the order of 13 million total votes for all presidential candidates. However, in 2014, with neither a presidential nor senatorial race, the total voting in the (non-competitive) governor's race was only a bit over 5.2 million, less than half the vote count of 2012.
What would you think? Probably the same as I do -- without a competitive race, more than half of those who voted in California in 2012 saw no need to go to the polls this year. That disincentive was irrespective of one's party affiliation, and irrespective of one's opinions. No one, not you nor I, and certainly not Barack Obama, has the right to infer a blessed thing from people's lack of participation in a process with no tangible options.
Paul McCartney is still alive, despite hordes of once-inebriated fans convincing themselves that they heard news to the contrary forty years since. If the president of the USA acts like an inebriated '70s type and starts hearing things no one said, we are in for some serious challenges.
Copyright 2014 by Robert Sutton
No comments:
Post a Comment