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

Brush this article off and reread it in a few years, and that will be the new “most important election of our lives,” when half the nation pretends to know precisely what’s best for the nation.

When was the last time an election was just an election, not “the most important election of our lives”? When was the last time the candidates were just candidates, not God’s candidate against the devil’s? Political hyperbole is on a perpetual rinse-and-repeat cycle, and America is exhausted.

This copy-and-paste phrase has become a ubiquitous rallying cry. The rhetoric, which has been employed for two centuries, heightens the stakes of each electoral cycle, creating a sense of urgency and existential threat among voters. The repeated invocation of this phrase has led to sensationalization fatigue, where the electorate becomes desensitized to the 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 pivotal elections (which every election seems to be these days), to galvanize voter turnout by suggesting that the future of democracy hinges on the outcome. This tactic has been employed by politicians, from Abraham Lincoln to Kamala Harris and Donald Trump to whoever is next, framing their campaigns as existential battles for the nation’s soul.

The continuous use of this phrase creates a cycle of sensationalization that leads to voter fatigue. Each election cycle, voters are bombarded with messages that imply dire consequences if their candidate does not win. This rhetoric often overshadows substantive discussions about policy and governance, as the focus shifts to apocalyptic 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 sensationalization fatigue are profound. Research indicates that the stress associated with political anxiety can lead to various health issues, including sleep disturbances and chronic illness. A Pew Research Center survey found that a significant part 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 result in a sense of helplessness, where individuals feel their participation in the electoral process is futile, further exacerbating political apathy.

The implications of sensationalization fatigue extend beyond individual well-being; they threaten the democratic process. When voters become desensitized to the urgency of elections, they may choose to disengage entirely, thinking their votes do not matter. This disengagement can lead to lower voter turnout, which undermines the democratic principle of representation. Historically, U.S. voter turnout has been lower than that of many other democracies. The sensationalization of elections may contribute to this trend by fostering a belief that every election is a crisis, resulting in burnout rather than mobilization.

Fostering a more balanced discourse around elections is essential to combating sensationalization fatigue. Politicians and news outlets should strive to provide context and nuance in their messaging, focusing on the issues at stake rather than resorting to hyperbolic claims. Encouraging civic engagement and civil discourse through community involvement and local initiatives can shift the focus from national crises to actionable steps individuals can take to effect change in their communities.

Promoting a more measured approach to political discourse can help restore faith in the electoral system and encourage meaningful participation in democracy.

The likelihood of a more measured approach isn’t promising. Candidates in different parties aren’t as different as they claim to be, thus having to appeal to the electorate’s emotions instead of intellect. Election cycle after election cycle, broken promise after broken promise, everything seems to stay the same as we kick substantive policy and governance matters down the road until the next election cycle, then the next, then the next.

Not to worry, this election is different. This election is the “most important election of our lives,” … just like the last one, the one before that, and the one before that.

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