(Crossposted at Campaign U.)

One of the stories this campaign season has been the youth vote, and the main story line comes down to this: Obama gives them inspiration. Type “youth vote inspired Obama” into Google and more than 600,000 hits come up.

If the youth vote does jump from its showing in 2004 (a significant increase from 2000), we should applaud 18-to-24-year-olds for their civic growth, and if Obama motivates them to cast their ballots in record numbers, he counts as more than a politician. He’s a leader.

We should pause, however, over the source of the increase in youth civic engagement. It sounds all to the good, and parents and teachers should advance the project of youth voter participation. But inspiration does have a down side, too, one that mentors should discuss with the young, for while it may ensure larger participation, it isn’t the best motivation for voting. Reasons:

One, it’s inconsistent. Inspiring politicians come and go, and if one doesn’t fill a slot on the ballot, inspiration-based voters stay home.

Two, it elevates the candidate into an idol, not a politician. The candidate edges toward celebrity status, making the inevitable political labor of compromise, deal-making, policy-drafting, and message-crafting seem almost a diminishment.

Three, it turns the voter into a “responder,” so to speak. Inspiration as the measure of participation makes individuals consult an inner yardstick for voting habits, not the objective demand of citizenship in a democracy.

Four, it eclipses the decidedly un-inspirational content of policy positions. Most of the work of administrations involves adjustments to existing programs, not creation of new ones or termination of old ones, and incremental changes in things don’t inspire citizens unless they see a direct impact on their lives.

And five, inspiration dispels one of the fundamental traits of citizenship, namely, mistrust of office holders — mistrust not because of the virtues and vices of the persons, but because of the powers they wield. The founders based the government on, among other things, the seasoned observation that power corrupts. Inspiration obscures the insight. It makes citizens identify with the leader and relax their vigilance, forgetting that the possession of power automatically sets the leader — any leader — more or less at odds with the rights of individuals.

So when campus discussions about the election arise this fall, the “Why vote at all?” question is worth raising. And if students say they intend to vote because Obama fires them up, reply with, “Very good, but why vote next time?”

(Image incorporates a photo by Flickr Creative Commons user rhettmaxwell)