Americans may yet be inspired by a campaign based on ideals

Elections always teach us something, and even though we haven't yet learned the answer to the biggest question of all -- Who won? -- this extraordinary election has already taught us a lot about America in the year 2000.

More than anything, this election may have reminded voters of a very simple and important truth. Not always, and not in all states, but sometimes each vote counts. Just ask the people of Florida, or maybe its absentee voters, who may wind up sealing this election.

But not all the news is good. It may have been difficult to determine from the reports of people standing in long lines to vote, but the reality is that turnout appears to have been just 50.7 percent. That is up ever so slightly from 1996. But it still means that half of the people in this country who could have voted, didn't. Never mind that it was an extremely close election, or that voters were courted by well-funded get-out-the-vote efforts by both parties and their allies in many states.

This year's low voter turnout is discouraging, but no surprise. It reflects a deep downward trend in Americans' civic involvement over the past few decades, not only in voting, but in many other forms of participation as well, such as campaign work and census participation.

To understand why so many people aren't voting, we need to understand why some people do turn out to vote. They do not vote simply to protect or advance their own interests, or to ensure that their candidates win. They vote because it's their civic duty and because they feel connected to the political process. They feel that they are part of a larger community deliberation about a shared future.

And that -- the feeling of a shared future, or more precisely the lack of it -- most likely goes a long way toward explaining why at least this year's turnout was so low. This election upended John F. Kennedy's famous description of community involvement; the 2000 election was all about ``what your country can do for you'' rather than ``what you can do for your country.''

Both Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush ran campaigns that narrowed their appeals to the financial self-interest of particular demographic groups. And some voters responded in kind. Recall the question asked of the candidates in the third presidential debate: ``How will your tax proposals affect me as a middle-class, 34-year-old single person with no dependents?'' But not everyone can get worked up over such parochial interests.

The second reason for the low level of engagement during this election cycle is the way modern political campaigns are conducted. Talk-show appearances, 30-second TV spots and drive-by rallies hardly facilitate sustained and meaningful engagement in the political process.

People living in ``non-competitive states'' (even in this close election, that was still a majority of the states) are essentially shunned. We happen to live in Massachusetts -- a non-competitive state -- where the only way you knew there was an upcoming presidential election was by catching a glance of the candidates on TV with Oprah or Jay Leno.

Imagine if all the resources devoted to frenetic get-out-the-vote efforts and to the carpet-bombing of carefully selected audiences with TV ads were instead invested in building America's civic infrastructure: community meetings where people come together to grapple with substantive issues, door-to-door campaigning, coffee klatches. The very closeness of the election tells us that there is much to discuss.

Some might argue that involvement was low because the quality of the candidates was low, but we seem to hear that every election year. Whatever the merits or demerits of Gore and Bush, this election season certainly had potential for a healthy discussion of two very different views of how America should be governed.

We are blessed to live, after all, in the most affluent, peaceful era in U.S. history. If ever there was a time to look to the future, and discuss our various broader visions of a better America, this was the year.

As much as they tried to hide it, Bush and Gore do represent different philosophies on what government ought to do and how it ought to do it. This was lost, however, in the back-and-forth over how a family of four making $40,000 a year would fare under the Bush or Gore tax plan.

So, is there hope for a more engaged electorate and a more dynamic democracy? We might be naive, but we believe so. Witness Republican Sen. John McCain, whose failed primary campaign demonstrated that it is possible to interest voters -- young voters especially -- in politics that is about ``us'' more than about ``me.'' He did so, in part, by making genuine efforts to reach voters from venues other than TV studios.

Whatever one might think of the specifics of McCain's campaign proposals, and we ourselves differ on that, it is striking that his candidacy led to considerable increases in turnout for many early primaries. His was a remarkable coalition, consisting of many newcomers to politics. He assembled this coalition by calling on his audiences to seek something more than just a tax break. His call was for Americans, especially young Americans, to ``see themselves as part of a cause bigger than themselves.'' That line consistently drew huge applause.

In 2000, we learned that an exceedingly tight presidential race focused on ``what your country can do for you,'' was able to stem -- at least slightly -- the seemingly inexorable decline in voter turnout. A more ennobling race that stressed ``what you can do for your country'' might even be able to reverse that slide.

Robert D. Putnam is a professor of government at Harvard University and author of ``Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community,'' which was published this year. David E. Campbell is a doctoral candidate in Harvard's Department of Government. They wrote this article for Perspective.