© Moronic Ox Literary Journal - Escape Media Publishers / Open Books

Next Page

Moronic Ox Literary and Cultural Journal - Escape Media Publishers / Open Books

Novel Excerpts, Short Stories, Poetry, Multimedia, Current Affairs, Book Reviews, Photo Essays, Visual Arts                Submissions

Advertise your book, CD, or cause in the 'Ox'

Editor's Notebook

The 2012 Election: What Does It Really Tell Us? 

by David A. Ross

It is the morning after the night before. The results are tabulated, and President Barack Obama has won a second term by the narrowest of margins. The president's supporters seem jubilent even as Mitt Romney's supporters ask themselves what went wrong and how this could possibly have happened. The pundits on television and in the press are analysing the 50/50 results to mean that America is 'truly a divided nation', both politically and philosophically.  And while the results do indeed suggest such a division, that is not the entire story. Given all-too-scant attention are the approximately 90 million eligable voters who abstained by not casting a ballot, and it is equally important that we hear their voices.

To put these results in better perspective, each candidate received approximately 50 million (popular)votes. So, if indeed 90 million eligable voters did not cast a ballot, then the referendum was ultimately decided by a little more than half the electorate. The real winner of this election was 'none of the above'.

It is often said that it is the duty of a citizen living in a democracy to vote. Indeed, in some democratic countries it is the law that each citizen cast a ballot. The United States recognizes the right of any citizen to abstain. Over the past 50 years or so, citizens have exercized that 'right' in greater and greater numbers. As a country that champions democracy (at least in principle if not always in practice) we must ask ourselves the question: Why do so many citizens decide to abstain from voting for their leaders?

A number of possible answers to that question come to mind: 1) They are lazy; 2) They are uninformed; 3) They are not patriotic; 4) They do not feel represented by the candidates put forth by the major parties. Let's look at these arguments one by one.

Are Americans lazy? Hardly so. The United States has for centuries been one of the most industrious nations on earth. Are they simply uninformed? Given the redundancy of political ads, debates, news articles, television appearances, radio interviews and much, much more, it is hard to conceive of anyone who speaks the English language being totally uninformed about either the candidates or the issues of the day. Are they unpatriotic? I doubt that too. When the nation experiences a crisis, such as the recent storm in the northeast, Americans rally to help their fellow citizens, and this is patriotism of the first degree. So that leaves us with the fourth reason postulated, that they simply do not feel inspired or represented by either the ideas espounded by the two major parties or by the candidates themselves. Consider this statement contained in a recent, pre-election letter that I received from filmmaker Michael Moore: "I get it – and I don't blame you. You're fed up and you could care less whether Tweedledee or Tweedledumber wins on Tuesday – because on Wednesday, your life will be the same, unchanged, regardless who is president. Your mortgage will still be underwater. You will still owe $50,000 on your student loan. Your son will still be in Afghanistan. Your daughter will still be working two jobs to make ends meet. And gas will still be at $4." Moore goes on to say: "So, I get it why you've had it with all these politicians and elections. In the end, it doesn't really seem to be our country any more. It's run by those who can buy the most politicians to do their bidding. Our schools are made a low priority and women are still having to fight for just the basic human rights we thought they already had."

The TV pudits are calling the United States a 'truly divided country'. It is hard to argue with that assessment. A 50/50 election (executive and legislative branches) as well as 90 million voters who can find no reason whatsoever to support either major party certainly shows a schism. More than one hundred and fifty years ago President Abraham Lincoln uttered the now famous axiom: "A house divided against itself cannot stand." That now famous statement was certainly true during the Civil War. But what about today? Can the American 'house' , divided not into equal halves but into three segments, survive?

Americans tend to view themselve, and their country, as the shining beacon for democracy - indeed, as the 'greatest nation on earth'. Whether this is in some sense true, or whether it is simply American bravado. or wishful thinking, or downright arrogance does not conceal certain facts such as 60 million medically indigent people, or 30 million illegal immigrants waiting for some pathway to full citizenship, or a precipitously declining education system, or a manufacturing sector in shambles. A quick visit to the CIA Factbook (where this writer acquires many of the statistics cited in other writings) will confirm that, for example, the United States now has an infant mortality rate similar to many banana republics, that its medical system is rated by the  World Health Organization at #37 in the world, just behind Slovenia and just ahead of Honduras, that education has plummeted to 49th in the developed world, and on and on it goes. It is no mystery why neither major party candidate dwells on such depressing statistics. Not only are such realities not addressed in political campaigns, but they rarely seem to be addressed in practice either. So is it any wonder that those who are informed about such things feel deep frustration?

It is often said that a democracy always gets the leaders that it deserves. I wonder. I wonder about those 90 million non-voters: are they getting the leaders they deserve?

But perhaps there is an even greater issue here, again one that is paid no lip service, one that is not even whispered because it is unthinkable, or perhaps beyond belief. Can the American 'house' stand divided? Or must it eventually fall from irreconcilable differences of opinion? No doubt America is in the midst of a full-blown cultural revolution, and it would seem from not only the vote tabulations of the most recent referrendum, but also from those who refused to participate, that there are not just two Americas, but three. History is full of examples of such divided cultures, and it is certainly not unfounded to see such civilizations torn apart, litereally and figuratively. It is also not without precedent to see such cultures fall under the control of dictators or military rule. I seriously doubt that most Americans can even visualize such a scenario, but they should. Because it can, and often does, happen. Whether or not the United States (meaning its people and its leaders) will come to terms with these deep divisions, and even deeper problems, remains to be seen. If they can somehow come to terms with the idea that they are foremost one country rather than a divided one, America's promise has a chance to move into the next century; if not, it may end  abruptly, perhaps violently, and go down in history as a glorious but short-lived footnote - a three hundred-year experiment in that antiquated idea know as democracy.

About the author: David A. Ross was born January 6, 1953 in Chicago, Illinois. In addition to his career as a novelist (Good Morning Corfu, 2009; Open Books; How High The Wall, 2008; Open Books; Sacrifice and the Sweet Life, 2003, Escape Media; A Winter Garden, 2003, Escape Media; Stones, 2001, Escape Media; Xenos, 1998, Escape Media; The Trouble With Paradise; 1997, Escape Media), he is a former columnist and contributing editor for Southwest Art Magazine (1984-1985). His first novel, The Trouble With Paradise, was awarded third prize in the 1997 National Writer's Association Novel Competition. David A. Ross is the editor of the Moronic Ox Literary & Cultural Journal.