Another year of McCandidates and campaigns with no special sauce

Frontiersman editorial board

Last night the Iowa Caucuses officially kicked off the 2004 run for the White House. Though this newspaper went to print before results were tabulated, much can already be said about the 2004 election race.

President George W. Bush enjoys the highest approval rating by a president in a re-election year since Lyndon B. Johnson. Though many Americans have voiced concern over the president's domestic and foreign policies, and over an economy that, thought it has demonstrated some signs of recovery, still has not provided much relief for unemployed Americans, the president still enjoys strong popularity.

That will likely make things difficult for whichever Democratic candidate emerges as the party's nominee. Unfortunately, given the current electoral process in the U.S., voters are likely to know very little in the way of substance regarding any of the candidates -- even at the end of the campaign season.

We elect our political leaders, especially at the national level, the same way we choose our soft drinks or our snack foods -- largely based upon snap impressions formed by watching television commercials, and greatly impacted by popular opinion. Listening to any of the Democratic candidates speak, with your eyes closed, you'd be hard pressed to tell them apart.

Most candidates run a strictly populist-style campaign, seasoned with a degree of negativity toward opponents. The level of negativity depends upon one of two factors. The trailing candidate turns up the negativity in relation to how far behind he lags in the polls. Both sides turn it up when the race is neck and neck.

The combination of populist pabulum and desperate negativity leaves voters knowing virtually nothing about what candidates actually believe, and knowing too much about minor character flaws. It leaves us to vote upon impressions, and then to cross our fingers to see what the winner actually looks like when he or she emerges from the cloak of campaign caution. Too often, good candidates drop out of the race early because they can't raise the money to compete in the marketing battle. Too often, we are left to choose between two sub-par candidates because they make up in fundraising skills for what they lack in ability to govern.

We wish we could have one campaign season in which there were no political ads, and the candidates were simply forced to participate in a debate in every single state. We wish candidates would, one time, step into the light and give us something meaningful to vote for -- or against. Wouldn't that be … democratic?