Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> On Sep 15, 2006, at 9:07 PM, mike larkin wrote:
>
> > I don't think so. Most nonvoters I've met are pretty
> > happy, well adjusted folks. They don't vote because
> > they're not interested in politics. Period.
>
> While this is mostly true, that level of detachment and lack of
> interest didn't arise spontaneously. 19th century visitors to the US
> remarked on how engaged people were in politics - where'd that go?
> Restrictive electoral laws, the dominance of money, deepening
> alienation from social life, and a raft of other similar things
> produced that "apathy."
This sounds reasonable. The difficulty with ml's formulation, "they're not interested in politics. Period," is that it simply names what is to be explained but offers no explanation whatever, merely asserting (what is sort of obvious) that voters don't want to vote because they don't want to vote." Age differences, class differences, income differences between voters and non-voters also need to be accounted for.
If one decides public actions from an individual perspective, then voting makes no sense at all, since an individual vote cannot make any difference (even if/when the election's outcome does make or may make a difference). Were 19th c. u.s. residents more conscious of themselves as members of blocs rather than as individuals?
Carrol