ALTHOUGH WE'RE over a yearaway from the presidentialelection, the country is buzzing with anticipation. Will Hillary be the candidate for the Democrats? Can Rudy overcome his weak stances on social conservative issues? And what about Fred: What's he doing? Despite this tender hysteria, however, the 2008 horserace is once again revealing an uncomfortable aspect of American politics: We campaign too much and too early.
Pundits and junkies across the land are getting all the thrills they bargained for, but this political overdrive hurts our democracy by addressing our problems through conflict and drama rather than resolute compromise and dialogue. What we need is political self-restraint, but since that's unlikely, we also need mandated restraint.
The leading and major candidates on both sides officially started their presidential bids nearly two years before voters hit the polls, and that's not even considering the innumerable closed-door meetings and planning sessions held in the preceding years.
Fred Thompson seems to be one of the few contenders, if not the only one, who's taking his preparations lightly; he's not even officially in the race. On the other hand, you have Hillary, who has spent the better part of the last seven or so years as a New York senator laying the groundwork for a presidential campaign through relatively moderate votes and bipartisanism. Hillary is the microcosm for what's happening here, not Thompson.
Several candidates are "serving" in elected positions, but unsurprisingly, governance is not so high on their agendas. Beyond the fact that they're missing significant parts of their terms, their votes are susceptible to political motivations, criticism that has dogged Hillary and Obama's votes on the Iraq war. Our elected representatives are generally scrutinized all the time, but all the more so when running for the presidency. They are obviously aware of this, which may decrease any tendencies to vote with their consciences.
Congress needs to standardize national elections. It should set a reasonable time limit, perhaps three months or so, before the primaries when candidates in elected positions can start campaigning. Candidates can continue receiving money prior to that time, but they should be required to spend a certain amount of time doing what they were elected to do: serve the people, meaning staying in Washington or in some state capital legislating and executing the laws.
Candidates don't necessarily have to be invisible before the three month period; they can promote themselves online and through other means, but they shouldn't be making stump speeches and holding debates a year and a half prior to the actual election. Those kinds of activities require a great deal of focus and preparation, two qualities that they should use to help their constituents rather than telling the world how great they are.
The above restrictions pertain only to individuals in elected office running for president, mainly because only in those elections do the cash and the passions seem to be in endless supply.
Those who were in public service but no longer are can start campaigning whenever they wish: They have no current obligations to the people. Essentially, the presidential races are not just competitive, but too competitive. They are competitive to the point of being nauseating and damaging our national well-being.
Presidential candidates start so early because there's too much pressure: pressure to outspend opponents and to post good poll numbers so that they can generate more money and attention. Such a brutally self-serving system is unlikely to improve itself.
People often say that time is money. Through the efforts of campaign finance reform, we've already regulated money in political campaigns, so we ought to place limits on their time as well.
Erald Kolasi's column usually appears Mondays in the Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at ekolasi@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 4 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
