THE ALLURE OF POWER

King George III called Washington the “greatest of men” for surrendering power after two terms. Only the not-so-great Franklin Roosevelt* broke that precedent, deciding that no one but himself could do the job. (The constitution was amended to prevent a recurrence of this). The American presidency in its present incarnation draws enormous egos  able to expend four years running for office in an insane unending campaign. The British just had an election with a campaign that lasted all of six weeks and power was transferred almost immediately. Our campaigns now never end, and despite the efficacy of a very  “democratic” process. Yet after all is said and done we are faced with two candidates a majority of the people do not want. This has to change to restore any kind of normalcy to the United States. 

At this moment it appears that Joe and Jill intend to hold on to power to the bitter end. Unless Jill lets go the administration will continue and a mixed bag of largely radical staff will continue to run the country, much as they have for some time now. The trappings of office are too powerful an elixir to easily surrender. The 25th Amendment is unlikely to be invoked in this instance and ought to be revisited. Does it make any sense for a VP to start a process that will lead to replacing the President and then become President (in this case) herself?  

It will take a large, possibly even a majority of Democratic representatives to broach the subject and right now most are sitting on their hands. It will take a fraught, monumental effort to displace Joe Biden. One of the characteristics of people with dementia is that they don’t know they have it by the time their mental state starts to decline. Consequently it is unlikely that Biden can be persuaded to step down unless there is overwhelming majority pressure, and/or Jill changes her mind. But neither she, nor more importantly, the senior staff want to surrender power. 

It is imperative that we change the electoral system or we shall devour ourselves just through rancor. To get better candidates we need a better system. As far as I am concerned the best president would be someone who doesn’t want to be president and who is not consumed by pursuit of that office. 

*Although routinely rated "great" by left-leaning historians, apart from clinging to power Roosevelt also mishandled things that he is usually given credit for solving. Modern economic research now shows that his policies actually prolonged the depression. When it comes to World War II if the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had occurred in the face of today's media, would there not be scandalous inquiry?  I am not suggesting that America's role in the war was at all bad, but rather that it could have gone differently without Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt was determined to get into the war and did everything possible to provoke the Japanese, especially by cutting off oil. But that being the case, and that being the intent the nation, should have been fully prepared for war beforehand rather than being caught by surprise. Roosevelt was succeeded by Harry Truman, whom everyone thought of as just a common man. Nevertheless he ended the war and generally rose to the position of President, hence proving that no one is indispenable and that there was no necessity for Roosevelt serving two additional terms. The only indispensable man was Washington, but such a man only comes along over a few thousand years. 

WHAT REALLY MATTERS ABOUT JANUARY 6, 2021

When Biden and Harris spoke this morning my jaw dropped in disbelief. It is apparent that the Democrats are going to use the riot of last Jan.6 as a new holiday of sorts to obscure their utter and complete failure on every single problem this country faces. No doubt it stirred emotion among Democratic partisans and the gullible, and anger among Republicans, but it all seems blind to the most significant to occurrence that day, which to me seemed obvious at the time, and still resonates, which was the failure to maintain security at the Capitol. So we need to look at the facts and get past the emotion.

Joe Biden gave a terrible divisive speech devoted largely to attacking Donald Trump, who, it must be said, provides a target-rich environment, mostly consisting of remarks he should have addressed a year ago. Apparently someone woke him up, wound him up, and sent him out to the podium to deliver a bitterly partisan speech, largely beating a dead horse in attacking Donald Trump, instead of uttering a single unifying word. That is why it was completely disingenuous, at best designed to motivate Democrats, and at worst to confirm him as absolutely the worst president in the history of the USA.

To be clear, I do not for a minute believe the overall presidential election last year was stolen. I find that suggestion to be untenable, and Donald Trump’s behavior since the election bizarre and sadly self-destructive, following a highly successful term of accomplishment against daunting odds. But any honest assessment of the past few years will find the most  egregious “threat to democracy” to have occurred during and after the Obama administration when the security services of the county were compromised and debased into partisan weapons against the incoming administration; (never mind the endless and worse “big lie” that the Russians were really in control, ultimately found to have emanated from the Hillary Clinton campaign and buried by the dishonest media). This was substantively far worse than a disorganized mob milling around the Capitol that was shockingly and poorly secured. It was a passing event, as opposed to deep and lasting damage to the state that has not only compromised  its legitimacy but only gotten worse, as we see these now comical security services unleashed against parents concerned about the poisonous ideology being imposed upon school children, or chasing phantom white racists while adversaries around the world are laughingly eating our lunch. 

There have been other instances in the past where “sacred” government facilities have be debased. When Andrew Jackson was elected president a mob was invited into the White House that became unruly and caused a great deal of damage. As far as January 6th goes, if there in fact had been any controlling conspiracy (yet to be found) to seize the Capitol it would have succeeded given how abysmally poor the security was. Now who actually had controlling responsibility over the Capitol police? None other than Speaker Nancy Pelosi herself. Yes, what became a mob was fed a lot of misinformation, and a handful actually destructively breached the facility (which allowed most to just wander around aimlessly taking selfies) but the lesson to take away from this is not the grave “threat to democracy” that occurred but the astonishingly unprepared, clueless security that day, which was just  inexcusable. It could easily have been a more organized attack by foreign enemies of the country, domestic radicals, or any bad player you can think of. 

Thus, it is false and misleading nonsense to suggest that foreign adversaries saw democracy as unworkable and under siege, when what actually registered with them was how bad the security was and how easy it was to breach. What they are still seeing is a bumbling, disorganized, dysfunctional security apparatus that can be penetrated compromised in a myriad of ways, thanks to the idiots in charge. They just don’t take this government seriously any more with its penchant for “stern warnings,” and “serious consequences” that never materialize. 

For Joe Biden to stand there and obfuscate the situation with canned rhetoric and dark fantasies about the terrible and apparently ongoing threat to democracy is preposterous, and worse a lame and devious attempt cover over the disastrous incompetence and failure of his administration across the board. It will no doubt stir the blood of partisans and pompous, gullible, and just plain stupid media mavens, who solemnly will continue the performance, and dutifully carry water for the Big Fool, but the real truth is that this country is in deep trouble, and hopefully enough people will be smart enough to see through the ruse, and respond accordingly at the ballot box. 

THE CHRONIC CAMPAIGN, ENDLESS EMAILS, AND MONEY ALL THE TIME

 I am absolutely furious with the people running the Republican campaign organizations and the annoying WinRed that does the charges.  My mailbox is perpetually flooded with email several times a day. There are literally a dozen or more from Donald Trump alone. Then there is everyone else running for office because the congressional campaign committees gave out my email.  

I of course I  finally took steps to stop this by telling them remove me from their lists but then they simply shifted over to another mailing list and were back again. This goes on continuously even though the next election is still almost a year away, due to the permanent campaign we have to endure. Worse, some of the wording is downright offensive for failing to respond. They have also cried wolf too many times, always falsely claiming they are behind in fundraising. 

As a result I sometimes miss important mail like notices and bills, etc. because of the nonstop flood. What I am going to have to do is make a new mailbox just for bills and other important things. Mind you it’s no secret I have been a lifelong conservative, but I have had it with this. I just don’t know what they think they are accomplishing by annoying people this way. 

I’m even getting mail from the Democrats now due to a publication giving out my address! A good part of the reason for all of this is tunnel vision, that is more and more ubiquitous across the board in today’s society. By that I mean the organizations are now so laser-focused on particular objectives that the staff pull out all the stops to try and achieve them without any consideration of collateral consequences. The campaign people want to raise as much money as they can and nothing else much matters. 

The larger problem, of course, is money and the endless quest for it. Politicians spend an inordinate amount of time fundraising, and most of them hate it. Yet even those who most fervently claim to want campaign finance reform alway make sure to leave loopholes for themselves in any legislation that passes. The reality is it is almost impossible to get money out of the process as everyone is in on it, i.e. the pious media certainly does not want to lose all the money they collect in advertising. 

But what we can do, and what we desperately need to bring about is election reform. A good part of the problem would be mitigated if we limited the amount of time that campaigns can occur in, which would certainly spare us a lot of the cacophony of the endless campaign. Furthermore we need to get rid of primaries, which simply inordinately increase the resources needed to run for office. The idea that they are somehow more “democratic” is a delusion, given that few people vote in them, and those who do tend to be activists which simply pulls the parties to the extremes. The truth is the “party” is really comprised of the elected officials identifying with it, and they are the ones who should be nominating candidates. (I’ve written on this before with regard to the presidency but the idea hasn’t gotten any traction yet).

It does not, however, completely resolve the problem of money. It is not so much that it gives advantage to “the rich” since they are as varied in outlook as the rest of the population and the notion that they form a cohesive “class” is simply not reflected in reality. But there are wealthy individuals who, on a personal level, do get more access than they deserve because politicians are generally easily impressed by big money. So they get to hang around and mostly feed each others’ egos, go to Epstein’s island, etc. Then when it sometimes blows up they have to scramble to disassociate themselves from people they were intimately associated with. 

I will never forget how, years ago, I did a lot of work for a candidate for a top executive position because I took him seriously in his commitment to principle.  At the same time, from the opposite side, a billionaire I had some acquaintance with was doing everything possible to defeat this candidate, organizing and pouring funds into the incumbent’s campaign. My candidate won. But I cannot overstate the shock I felt when barely a few weeks into his term he had dinner with the same billionaire who had just worked against him so strongly. I have never trusted any of them since then and it wasn’t long before I completely walked away from all of that. Money trumps principle, and just about everything else, and these people are never going to change. Thus the only thing to do is to eliminate as much of the need for funds as possible starting with what I have outlined above. 

THE US MIDTERM ELECTION RESULTS

The general consensus, even among hostile media, is that the midterm election results went relatively well for Trump and the Republicans, due largely to an increased majority in the Senate, and a less-than-disastrous loss of the House, particularly in historical terms.  While there is some truth to this, a look under the hood for a more detailed analysis of the results shows some problematic conditions for Republicans. 

First, there is a fairly widespread pattern in the margins of victory across the board. In Democratic Party dominated “blue” states the Democratic candidates won by very large, landslide margins. In contrast, in too many Republican-leaning “red”states the victory margins were much thinner, sometimes razor-thin. That ought to set off alarm bells, particularly where the margins have been narrowing, as it suggests a potential transition of the state to a more competitive status, if not towards the other party. This applies to both the House and Senate (Governorships are more fluid due to state and local conditions). It means that Democrats are more competitive in “red” states than Republicans are in “blue” states. 

Second, Republican congressional losses were concentrated in the suburbs, once the base of the party. It is possible that many of these seats can be regained in subsequent elections, as long as they remain “swing” districts, but others are slipping away. The present political landscape makes it easier for Democrats to make incursion in Republican territory than the reverse.

Third, Republicans cannot count on the Democrats to self-destruct. Although the “resistance” and the far-Left have gotten a great deal of attention, that does not translate into public support. But Democrats played it smart in this election by fielding a large number of center-moderate candidates, including a significant number of veterans. They avoided identity politics and other assorted evils previously foisted upon us. This enabled them to win swing and Republican-leaning districts. If the Democrats follow this strategy in the next presidential election it will become a very difficult contest for Trump and the Republicans. 

On this basis it is fair to say that most Americans are, for the most part, terminally moderate. The idea that the country is “deeply divided” is an illusion that many have been sold on by the media.   “Division” is inherent in democracy. On almost any question there is going to be a majority and a minority, resulting in a division of the house to resolve a question. There may be intense divisions between activist minorities on both sides, but it is a mistake to conflate this with the pubic at large. For all the ideological noise, elections are often decided at the last minute by votes cast by people who are oblivious, disengaged, and uncommitted. For most people have a life outside of politics, where they pursue a myriad of interests, and seldom identify intensely with any political cause.  

IS THE SYSTEM RIGGED?

When we hear the “system is rigged” what “system” are we referring to? The idea that there is any kind of overall “system” is a nebulous concept that went out with Marx. It is like saying that life is rigged. That is not to say there are not particular systems, such as the political system or electoral system, so the question at this time is really whether those are in any way “rigged.” In the US there is no overall national control of elections; nor is there even much in the way of state control. Elections are organized in a myriad of localities, each with its own system so that they cannot possibly be controlled by anyone anywhere. No one can rig that system. This does not mean there is no electoral fraud in some jurisdictions, but it is not widespread enough these days to throw an election, due to so many safeguards and vigilance on both sides.

What about other factors, such as media influence? Here there is clear and obvious bias against Trump, evident no matter what your political persuasion, and to a lesser extent against Republicans generally. This may be unfair but it isn’t rigged.There is definitely a herd mentality, not by any design or collusion, but ideological sympathy, and, more importantly, reliance on the same news sources. There is no question that the execrable New York Times regularly performs front page political hatchet jobs, so when the Times breaks (or fabricates) a “story,” most major media pick up on it because that is where they get much of their news from, especially in New York, still the media capitol.  These days reporters are more likely to be reading the Times than going out and actually finding news themselves. While that may be annoying to the right, the Times has little legitimacy beyond the left and the notion it is the “newspaper of record” is a joke, especially when there is free open competition and something like Fox News can draw more people than the other networks combined. 

But if these things are not exactly rigged, it does not mean the situation is not fair; it isn’t. But life is not fair. Most establishment institutions are against Trump, and elites are virtually united in their opposition to him. This includes those normally associated with the right, such as conservative intellectuals, as well a wholesale desertion of corporate backers not seen since the Goldwater candidacy. Thus the entire establishment is almost completely aligned with Hillary Clinton, whose campaign is flush with cash. So yes, the deck is stacked in this sense, but this is not the same as rigging, or conspiring to steal the election, for the process itself is largely immune to tampering.

Things are going well for these people, who believe they are part of a “meritocracy” and deserve to be where they are, but the only real merit system that exists is in professional sports, and to a lesser extent, science. Instead, these elites are more often people with good social skills, such as sucking up, connecting, networking, and playing the game rather than necessarily being the best at what they do, as well as just plain luck. This conceit also makes them largely oblivious to those who feel the “system” is no longer working for them. 

For what the elites are missing is the depth of the alienation of the working class along with a substantial segment of the middle, who increasingly have lost faith in established institutions, and no longer recognize the country they are living in. They have responded to Trump, who has managed to channel this sentiment  in spite of material provided by the elites, who are baffled by the seeming imperviousness to critical information by a substantial portion of the population. This “revolt of the masses” and Trump’s candidacy meanwhile threatens to delegitimize the whole process and Trumpism, or right-populism, will not disappear after election night. Indeed a more gifted politician could potentially take it over the top, for whatever the election outcome, Trump has succeeded in rattling the system to its core. 

GREECE GOES OVER THE PRECIPICE

The Greek election results represent a country throwing a national tantrum. In handing power over to the radical left Syirza party, which cannot possibly deliver on anything it has promised, they are sending a message to the European Union and IMF, which have insisted on an austerity program to mitigate the results of continuous government mismanagement and excessive debt. Unfortunately this has thus far resulted in a sharp drop in living standards, 25% unemployment, and extreme hardship over the past several years. But ironically the worst is over and the country finally was heading towards an economic recovery, at least prior to this election. 

The EU, and Germany especially, as the strongest economy in the region, required structural reforms to continue lending, including privatizing government assets, cutting pensions, salaries, and personnel, pressuring the Greeks to rationalize their dysfunctional state and its bloated public sector. This has caused great pain, and while actually producing results, at this point the people have had enough. The vote for Syriza is less an ideological shift than an emotional reaction and an expression of frustration. It is also completely irrational. This party is led by an ex-communist named Alex Tsirpas, who apparently left that party because it was not radical enough, and who is totally clueless as to how a government functions. 

This party has pledged to undo the austerity regimen and cancel a large part of their debt, while also double the minimum wage, increasing pensions, stopping privatization, while at the same time staying in the eurozone. This is simply impossible. If they move forward with this platform it will likely mean an exit from the euro and economic chaos within the country. The effect on Europe may be significant if it spreads to other European countries, such as Spain and Italy that have similar problems, and may roil markets around the world. However, unless markets panic the effect will not be all that significant insofar as Greece represents only 5% of the European economy.  

More troubling is the likelihood that Greece is but a harbinger for many other countries in Europe, given their low birth rate and slow economic growth,  which will be unable to sustain the generous benefits that have been promised, or possibly even service the debts they have assumed. There are comparable radical parties elsewhere with similar appeals, that are gaining traction, but  promising the sky cannot provide any solution and will likely make things worse, because radicals are incapable of governing. There will be capital flight, higher taxes, no access to financial markets, and a bleak future for those who follow this path. 

That radicals can so easily take control of a country and steer it towards disaster proves the wisdom of checks and balances in government, as well as the separation of powers. While Greeks can be proud of a great many achievements, including democracy, functioning self-government is not one of them. From the most ancient times right up to the present, political stability and effective government have been vanishingly rare. As one who has many ancestors from that country, it is at the moment an embarrassment.

LAST WORD ON LAST YEAR

When the holiday season comes around I try to tune out the unending political rancor, and realize just how caustic it is when the season dissipates and it returns to the forefront. It is true that most people don’t follow these things or give them much attention, but those who do are usually angry for one reason or another, or upset about something, or fearful of what may happen, even though it often never occurs. For me the recent election and its aftermath constituted a distraction from other things I’d rather be focusing on, and never intended to give it as much attention as I have. I’d rather stay disinterested, but before moving on I’d like to reiterate a few ideas.  

It is pointless for those on the losing side to try and assign blame for the results, but some silly “explanations” have been put forward. These usually reflect the tendency to try and fit the election outcomes to reinforce something one believed before the election, or to advance a particular agenda. This is followed by a call to get rid of people they don’t like or disagree with. A lot of this has been directed against people with strong religious views, i.e. evangelical Protestants, Orthodox Jews, conservative Catholics, etc. - generally referred to as the “religious right.” A rather large number of people are then tarred with the antics of a minor fringe, and it is suggested that they should be ignored. They say these people have too much influence on social issues, and have alienated other people, who then vote for the other party, having been “driven away.” The fallacy in this is that these votes would otherwise have gone Republican, but there is no evidence to substantiate this claim. It is alleged that “exclusionary rhetoric” (which is often mentioned but rarely specifically identified) is the problem, and therefore this group should be excluded.  I don’t share much of the worldview of the religious right, but I know that purging people is no way to build a majority. 

Some people now feel under siege and threatened, based upon fears that certain things might happen, usually based upon rhetoric of the other side, rather than the more pragmatic reality any government must deal with. They feel that the country has been lost and America as we have known it is over.  I think this is a bit premature, at the very least until 2014, when the outcome will very likely be different.  A significant number of people have actually signed secession petitions for their state, which is like picking up your marbles and leaving the game because you lost. I shouldn’t have to say this, but it’s not a good idea for a number of reasons. First because even most so-called “blue” states are actually geographically predominantly “red” at the county level. Thus, that means ceding away most of the territory in those states and abandoning the people who live in those counties. Second, over 600,000 died in a war to preserve the union and it is a disgrace to their memories.  Third, assuming these states actually did secede, soon enough there would be divisions within those states, in terms of government and opposition; this is inherent in the political process. 

Election outcomes have been far worse. When I was a fifteen years old I poured my heart and soul into Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign.   When he lost I was heartbroken,  at what I thought was the triumph of socialism and the end of our world. I recall being at the NY Conservative party office (because the Republican party establishment didn’t support Goldwater) on election night. Women were crying and  guys were cursing the television at every smirk that appeared on Walter Cronkite’s face. The results then were a rout; there were losses everywhere, from congress to the state legislatures, and majorities left virtually nowhere. That was a time when communism seemed to be advancing all over the world, and socialism did seem to be the wave of the future, and our opposition seemed hopeless. But history turned out very differently. 

For things are seldom as bad as they seem, nor as good as we would like them to be. Much of the despondency  (or triumphalism on the other side) I’m hearing in the aftermath of last year’s election is premature. Many have given this election a portent that is unwarranted, often based upon expectations that are unlikely to be realized. On the surface, a recent Gallup poll showing that “socialism” was now viewed positively by 39% of Americans ought to be worrying, until you look a little deeper. By the same survey apparently 25% of “conservatives” and 23% of Republicans also viewed socialism positively. What this tells me is that when it comes to political terminology most people are clueless. Maybe they think “socialism” means social media like Facebook? This makes one realize that the problem really may be less the other “side,” than a situation of general stupidity. You have to wonder what all the political effort and conflict means in the end when much of the public is at best, vaguely aware. Clearly there is yet much to be learned out there and that is something all sides ought to agree on. 

NO WAY TO PICK A PRESIDENT

A year before the election the news is dominated by the presidential race, and has been for months. Nowadays campaigns begin years before the election date and cost huge amounts of money, so it is no wonder that politicians spend more time running for office than they do actually governing. While Republican candidates have engaged in an endless series of debates, the current occupant of the White House has all but given up on governing in favor of campaigning. The chronic campaign produces two results- a dysfunctional government and elected officials who are good at campaigning rather than governing.

Permanent campaigning is a relatively recent development largely due to primary elections spread out over many months and geographic locations. Primaries are a result of the efforts of the progressive movement in the early part of the twentieth century, but only became decisive in 1960 when John F. Kennedy used them to prove his viability as a candidate and win his party’s nomination. But it is worth noting that Kennedy did not even declare his candidacy until January of that year. Nowadays it has gotten to the point where the next campaign begins the day after election day. We are subjected to all politics all the time. Is there any way to end this electoral cacaphony?

Contrast this with Britain, where campaigns are brief once elections are called. I am not suggesting we adapt a parliamentary system, but rather find some way to limit campaigns to a set time in order to end constant campaigning. There are of course parties with a vested interest in extended campaigns, including the media, campaign consultants, pollsters, fundraisers, political junkies, and activists. But how long should we allow the system to be hijacked by these groups? 

One way to reform the process would be to have candidates nominated by elected officials such as members of congress, the Governors, and representatives of state legislatures. Who after all best constitutes the party if not elected officials? This would likely produce better candidates who would also be better able to work with other elected officials. Those having the respect and  confidence of their peers would be in a better position to lead the country. Primaries also give too much weight to activists who are ideologically rigid, when government of necessity requires consensus and compromise. Would scrapping the primaries not limit the chances of outsiders? Not necessarily. Dwight Eisenhower was nominated and elected president despite never having served in public office. Generals were often nominated in the 19th century long before primaries. Any charismatic figure who could garner support could be nominated, but for the most part we would be better off with public officials who are known to others holding office. We might, in the process return to some of the character displayed by our first five presidents, who would find openly seeking the presidency unseemly, relying instead on the regard and respect of their peers. 

Under these circumstances campaigns would be much shorter and the cost of elections much lower. It would also give rise to people whose main talent is not in raising money and running for office, but in governing effectively.

MAKE THE DEAL

There are times when a strategic retreat makes sense, even losing a battle in order to win the war. That is the position the Republicans are now in with regard to the debt ceiling-budget battle. Although polls indicate that most people agree with conservative positions on these questions, when it comes to assigning blame on the impasse, 39% blame the Republicans, not Obama. Given this reality it makes no sense to continue insist on legislation that is not going to go anywhere given the Democratic Senate, although the Republican House membership must be credited with some great ideas. The question is how to ultimately get them implemented.

It is in everyone’s interest to get this default issue behind us, and take the McConnell plan, or something similar. That puts an end to the immediate crisis until the next election, at which time conservatives will be in a much better position to capture the Senate and Presidency. At that time the President will have no cover, no basis to blame Republicans, and will have to take the fall for the lousy economy. It is important to keep the long-term picture in mind. Most goals can be reached, but after 2012, if cooler heads prevail.

THE ENDLESS CAMPAIGN

In his State of the Union speech Barack Obama took the unprecedented step of criticizing a Supreme Court decision in front of the congress and country. That was an outrageous breach of etiquette and furthermore much of his statement was factually incorrect. The Supreme Court lifted restrictions on domestic corporate campaign contributions, not foreign contributions, which is prohibited by another law. Having once been subject to prosecutorial persecution on this issue myself, I believe we should get rid of most if not all campaign finance restrictions, provided there is full transparency on the record as to the source of all contributions. Donations to parties in particular should not be limited as they do not accrue to any single individual.

This is not because I look favorably on the vast amount of money going into political campaigns but because I think that finance reform is futile, and the wrong approach to a larger problem. What we really need is election reform. Currently we are subject to a virtually constant campaign. Elected officials spend an inordinate amount of time fundraising. John F. Kennedy did not even announce for President until January of 1960. Today the presidential campaign is ongoing, almost from the moment an election ends, even though the next election is years into the future. All other elected officials or potential candidates must be continuously preoccupied with fundraising.

So what is to be done to reform this system? I believe the answer lies in restricting the time period during which campaigning can be conducted. In Britain once elections are announced it is only a matter of several weeks before the election, not an endless number of months, as happens here. If the time frame for an election is limited, far less resources are required to seek office. With a shorter designated campaign window we would also not be subject to endless campaign solicitations and commercials. If both parties could agree on a time frame for campaigns the public interest would be far better served. An election campaign season should be measured in weeks, not months or even years. This would work for most elective offices. For the presidency the whole nominating procedure needs to be reformed, but that is a subject for another piece.