Longer campaigns result in lowered quality

Feb. 07



I know you care, so here's the update: Only 634 days until the big day.

And you are going to hear something about it every single day from now until then. Six hundred-plus times. Whether you like it or not. Six hundred sound bites from Hillary and Mitt and Barack (is that the first name or the last? I forget) and maybe Newt and maybe John and the other John and a few from Rudolph and someone called Kucinich.

Six hundred days, 21 months, nearly two years to pat themselves on the back and pretend to be all things to all people. Two years. Think of your mission, think of high school, think of someone you know with a lingering illness if it helps you to put into perspective how long 21 months really is.

This is insane. And costly. And we are smarter than this. We don't need 24 months to decide whether or not we like Bill Richardson or not (yes, he is one of the declared candidates for president, 2008) or whether or not we trust Hilary Clinton (I'll let you put your own parenthetical thought here).

The ironic twist to this 600-day parade is that the longer these folks are exposed to the public eye and the longer the circus of media follows their every move, the less we actually know. Because the length of the campaign increases the likelihood that a candidate will say something stupid or say or do something that will separate themselves from some special interest group, the less they really say. Therefore, the less we know.

The candidates know that it is a statistical fact that the more times they are questioned, the more answers they give and the more times someone sticks a mini-tape recorder in their face, the chances increase they will make a faux pas or misstatement or offend someone. To cope, only trite slogans and well-crafted mini-bites will be spoken. Rather than substantive issues being examined, with detailed analysis and information being debated, the entire 600-day carousel will be reduced to snippets and nuggets, each getting smaller by the day. Expect 600 days of Pablum, not beef steaks.

The reason is, ultimately, because of the length of the campaign. And you and me -- the voter -- are the losers.

And think of the money spent. Flights to Peoria and stumping in Hannibal all have their attached costs and have to be paid for, as do the dozens of staff assistants and uncountable television and radio ads. Consider all the social programs, educational opportunities and charities, for heck sakes, that could benefit from the enormous amount of financial support these campaigns require.

Hillary is already going door to door in Iowa. Obama (is that a first name or a last? I forget) is already in New Hampshire. These local citizens are good, honest Americans that do not need a steady diet of Democrats and Republicans to know who they like. A handful of deep, issue-oriented speeches, a debate or two should do it. A couple of months would do it. I feel sorry for them.

And for some reason, state governments promote the extension of this problem by all clamoring to be the location of a "primary." Some egocentic desire to feel important drives this, I guess, because in their effort to make themselves important as New Hampshire these statewide primaries only extend the campaign further out on the front end. I don't want Utah to have a new, earlier-than-everyone-else presidential primary. Period.

Does anyone remember the convention process? Does anyone remember when it meant anything? The whole presidential election campaign process needs to be blown up and revamped. Getting rid of the hanging chads was only the first step.

Here's a plan, then: reduce the presidential campaign period to a manageable six months. Add no more state primaries on the front end, even trim a few, which would beef up the importance of the convention. Limit by dollar amount how much can be raised and, thus, how much can be spent, on a single campaign. Reduce the amount of federal support to presidential campaigns -- whatever you do, don't check the box on your taxes that gives $3 to support this nonsense. The media should point fingers at candidates who don't say anything and urge substantive debate by refusing to buy into the say-nothing sound-bite mentality.

And the positive results will be obvious: less corruption (the longer the campaign, the more need for money and the more "promises" that will be made to donors); a more intense debate of the issues; fewer tiresome negative advertising messages.

That alone should make us welcome a change.