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

Put this article down and re-read it in a few years, and it will be the new “most important election of our lifetimes,” when half the nation claims to know precisely what is best for the nation.

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

This copy-pasted phrase has become a ubiquitous rallying cry. This rhetoric, used for two centuries, raises the stakes of each election cycle, creating a sense of urgency and existential threat among voters. Repeated invocation of the phrase has led to sensationalism fatigue, where the electorate becomes desensitized to hyperbolic claims about the importance of elections.

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

Continued use of the 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 doesn’t win. This rhetoric often overshadows substantive discussions about politics and governance, as the focus shifts toward 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 stress associated with political anxiety can lead to a variety of health problems, including sleep disorders and chronic illnesses. A Pew Research Center survey found that a significant portion of the U.S. population feels exhausted and angry when they think about politics, with 65% reporting frequent feelings of fatigue related to political discourse. This emotional toll can lead to a sense of powerlessness, in which 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 elections, they may choose to disengage completely, believing their vote does not matter. This disengagement can lead to a drop in electoral participation, which undermines the democratic principle of representation. Historically, voter turnout in the United States has been lower than that of many other democracies. Election sensationalism may contribute to this trend by fostering the belief that every election is a crisis, leading to burnout rather than mobilization.

Promoting a more balanced discourse around elections is essential to combat sensationalism fatigue. Politicians and the media should strive to provide context and nuance in their messages, focusing on the issues rather than resorting to hyperbolic claims. Encouraging civic engagement and civil discourse through community participation and local initiatives can shift the focus from national crises to concrete steps individuals can take to bring about change in their communities.

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

The likelihood of a more measured approach is not promising. Candidates from different parties are not as different as they claim, and therefore must appeal to the electorate’s emotions rather than their intellect. Election cycle after election cycle, broken promise after broken promise, everything seems to remain the same as we tackle substantive policy and governance issues until the next election cycle, then the next, then the next.

Don’t worry, this election is different. This election is “the most important election of our lifetime”… just like the last one, the one before that, and the one before that.

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