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

Take this article away and re-read it in a few years and this will be the new “most important election of our lifetime” when half the nation claims to know exactly what is best for the nation.

When was the last time an election was just an election, not “the most important election of our lifetime”? When was the last time the candidates were just candidates, 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 rallying cry. The rhetoric, which has been used for two centuries, raises the stakes every election cycle, creating a sense of urgency and existential threat among voters. Repeated invocation of this phrase has led to sensationalism fatigue, where the electorate becomes desensitized to hyperbolic claims about the significance of elections.

The phrase “the most important election of our lives” can be traced back to at least the early 19th century, with its first notable use in 1805 during a Pennsylvania gubernatorial race. Since then, it has been recycled in various forms, often during crucial elections (which seems to be every election these days), to galvanize voter turnout by suggesting that the future of democracy depends on the outcome. This tactic has been used by politicians from Abraham Lincoln to Kamala Harris and Donald Trump to whoever follows, framing their campaigns as existential battles for the nation’s soul.

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 imply dire consequences if their candidate does not win. This rhetoric often overshadows substantive discussions of politics and governance, as the focus shifts to doomsday scenarios rather than constructive dialogue. As a result, voters feel overwhelmed by the constant barrage of high-stakes narratives, leading to emotional exhaustion and disengagement from the political process.

The psychological effects of sensationalism fatigue are profound. Research indicates that the stress associated with political anxiety can lead to various health problems, including sleep disorders and chronic diseases. A survey by the Pew Research Center found that a significant portion of the American population feels exhausted and angry when thinking about politics, with 65% reporting frequent feelings of fatigue related to political discourse. This emotional toll can lead to a sense of powerlessness, where individuals feel that their participation in the electoral process is futile, further exacerbating political apathy.

The implications of sensationalism fatigue 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, believing their votes do not count. This disengagement can lead to lower voter turnout, which undermines the democratic principle of representation. Historically, turnout in the US has been lower than that of many other democracies. Sensationalizing elections can contribute to this tendency by promoting the belief that every election is a crisis, resulting in exhaustion rather than mobilization.

Promoting a more balanced discourse around elections is essential to combating sensationalism fatigue. Politicians and news outlets should strive to provide context and nuance in their messages, focusing on the issues at stake rather than resorting to hyperbolic claims. Encouraging civic engagement and civil discourse through community engagement and local initiatives can shift the focus from national crises to actionable steps people 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. The candidates of different parties are not as different as they claim to be, so they must appeal to the emotions of the electorate instead of the intellect. Election cycle after election cycle, broken promise after broken promise, everything seems to stay the same as we kick substantive politics and governance down the road to the next election cycle, and then the next, and then the next.

Don’t worry, these choices are different. This choice is “the most important choice of our lives”…just like the last one and the one before that and the one before that.

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