Lengthy debate is good

It's a long ways away until next year's presidential election, but the race is already underway with at least 18 candidates running in the two major parties and scores of minor party candidates desperately trying to get noticed.

The early launching of the presidential election has been heavily criticized in some quarters, but it may not be such a bad thing.

Both of the major parties already have begun a series of televised debates, which should mean that by the time the New Hampshire primary rolls around next year the public will have a much better idea of where candidates stand on issues.

Unfortunately, the debates have so many candidates that questions are limited to the famous "two minute sound bite." This doesn't allow anyone to get into the meat of what they really want to do.

But then, candidates usually are loathe these days to offer specifics, because as soon as they do, someone is going to object to some detail, and ultimately suggest throwing out the baby with the bathwater. All offering detail does is cost a candidate votes because the voters themselves have become so fickle, and so many are "single issue" voters, that the "big picture" gets lost.

Let's take health care for example. If a candidate were to advocate a specific policy, say universal health care for children, and offer the actual legislation he'd suggest, even if the plan were overall, a good one, so many people would pick over the details that in the end it would look like no one wanted the plan.

As voters, we need to be a little more relaxed, a little less critical, because no plan is ever going to be perfect, but that's what we seem to be asking for these days. So candidates don't offer the detail that will get them beat up, and citizens wind up being surprised by the proposals they actually put forward after the politicians have been elected.

Frankly, we need to lower our expectations of perfection.

What we really need is someone who is a combination of the brains and compassion of Jimmy Carter, and the long-range vision and inspirational leadership of Ronald Reagan. But what we need most is a candidate who leans toward the middle, where most of the voters are. Unfortunately, both party's selection processes seem to be driven by their radical wings (these are the "passionate" people who actually show up for party caucuses), so the guy in the middle gets shafted.

Maybe, just maybe, this lengthy process, with so many candidates getting a chance to air their views, will turn out to be a good thing in the long run, because it will give voters a wider range of choices, which just might modify the views of the final candidates enough that the radicals from the left and the right won't drive the process.

It's a long time to New Hampshire and the Iowa caucuses. But now, more than ever, it's a good time for a lengthy debate on the future of this country, and in the long run, that's a good thing.