By now, every editorialist in America has penned a piece decrying the overly long 2008 election, which actually began in 2006. It’s been condemned as a pernicious drain on the media, on our decency, and on our national attention. But it’s not altogether clear that this is true. After all, with the approval ratings of the current president hovering around 30 percent, we surely need to be careful about who we select as the next president. The country faces serious crises over domestic and foreign policy, and we should all closely examine the new crop of candidates.

More than any other election in recent history, this is not one to rush. A four-month whirlwind of platitudes and one or two manufactured scandals is not a substitute for the careful scrutiny the media, the Internet, and the politically aware public will put the candidates through.

Some journalists and commentators complain that the campaign is too “tiring”, for the press and candidates. Ed Rendell, former chairman of the Democratic National Convention, said “I think it’s insane.” Unfortunately, this type of work is in the job description for journalists. And no presidential candidate was drafted into the race, even if some supporters use the word to let their candidate show his charming reluctance to seek power.

There’s a vein of criticism that pities the poor American people, with their short attention spans, who will surely be worn down by the negativity and relentlessness of this cruel, cruel race. But the numbers tell a different story. It was 18 months from the first candidacy announcement to the 2000 election, and 22 months from the first candidacy announcement to the election of 2004. Contrary to those expectations, however, voter turnout crept up from 55 percent to 61 percent. Of course, we are facing a much longer leap this time around, with a total of 30 months since Biden’s announcement back in March of 2006. But this is hardly a resounding blow against democracy. It’s hard to imagine a potential voter thinking, “I would have voted. But I just know the candidates too well!”

Some take another tack and argue that the length of the campaign season forces out lesser-known candidates without a large war chest to keep them going over so many months. However, this effect is dwarfed by the advantage they receive by getting more time to build momentum from a tiny base of energized supporters—witness the meteoric rise of the obscure Republican Ron Paul, who recently set a record for the highest fundraising total in one day, and the speedy ascent of Mike Huckabee, the new champion of evangelical Christians.

Newspapers groan at the cost of covering so many candidates for so long, and pundits decry the supposed drain on America’s patience. But we should be concerned with the best interests of this country and its people. Change on any front—global warming, Iraq, the economy, or civil liberties—is unlikely for the increasingly embattled and defensive Bush administration. Four of his five presidential vetoes have come in this year alone. And with Congress also suffering low approval ratings, it lacks the confidence necessary to override the president.

The 2008 election is the most significant political event on the horizon. With this much at stake, it’s simply lazy to bemoan the length of the election. Instead, we should make use of the coming months to analyze the candidates’ honesty, ability to lead, and commitment to the issues that matter to us. Slow and steady wins the race.





Daniel C. Barbero ’11, a Crimson editorial comper, lives in Canaday Hall.