Imagine enduring only six weeks of campaigns before voting for the President of the United States. The idea appeals to many Americans as we sit here in February 2007 with over 20 candidates already announced for the 2008 race. But I believe it would be a horrible idea to rush a race for U.S. President.
Let’s say the Presidential campaign begins March 1 and ends April 15. Short campaigns are sufficient for governments such as the British Parliament because on the surface elections are less expensive, less likely to breed negative campaigning, and less likely to lose the public’s interest. But it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the right idea for America. It may seem appealing at first glance, but this is not the right direction. Lesser known candidates’ stand little chance when trying to compete and the public has little time to fully evaluate each candidate’s issues. We need sufficient time to pick our leader and to understand their issues extensively. It takes time for leadership to emerge, especially on the national scene.
We know the popular presidential candidates and the persuasive ones, but what about the lesser known candidates? Having shorter campaigns allows those popular and persuasive candidates to hold their voters’ attention a lot easier without as much effort that would be required in a longer campaign, that is a negative effect. A longer campaign gives lesser known candidates a fighting chance, and makes our country more democratic. Herbert G. Klein, writing for the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, supports my argument when he provides an important fact that Jimmy Carter was “a little-known governor and peanut-farmer who went on a two-year, nonstop campaign and upset all odds in winning his party’s nomination and eventually the presidency.”
If we compare picking the President based on persuasive ability within a six week time frame with the idea of picking a spouse based on beauty, then you can better understand my argument. The beautiful suitors would be the popular choice, but we all know that for a long term marriage to work, you need to understand what that person is about more than how beautiful they may look. That is what the result would be if we elected our next President within six weeks. We would select a person with the best image on first impression and have a vague idea of their issues. In a traditional race we begin to see flaws in their arguments over a lengthier period of time.
Although American attention spans are getting smaller, maybe it’s because the candidates are not exciting enough. There will be more people focused on who our next President will be for at least two reasons: our current situation with the War in Iraq and because a woman and African-American have legitimate shots at winning. This race could be historic and fun.
We need sufficient time to pick our leader, to understand their issues extensively, regardless of their attention span. Many people continuously swing their vote from one moment to the next which allows better candidates to emerge due to the competitive field. Randolph T. Stevenson and Lynn Vavreck, researcher for the British Journal of Political Science, tested 113 elections in thirteen democracies, and concluded that campaign length does matter for voter learning. They specifically state that “in campaigns of sufficient length voters may have more time to be exposed to competing campaign messages and to learn about the true state of the economy and the true policy positions of candidates”. We cannot sacrifice knowing each candidates issues extensively. It would be too risky for our country, and especially when we put the elction in context our current situation.
Referring back to my idea on marital relationships, when you meet someone for the first time, do you really believe you know them well within six weeks? It takes more than six weeks to be considered credible. Electing our next President within six weeks would direct our decision making towards the candidate who persuades us now. We could find out later that they have flaws that we just can’t stand, and does the current President ring a bell?
You wouldn’t choose your spouse within six weeks (unless it’s a reality television show, and we know how successful they are!). Therefore, why settle for electing the President of the United States in that short period of time? That can have catastrophic effects! Six weeks is too risky. If time lets us know that a certain person might be the one for us in loving terms, then lengthier elections will allow Americans a chance to vote for the candidate they truly feel is the right person.
Jamie Gwynn '09
Wilkes University
Communications Studies Major
No comments:
Post a Comment