I'm not a fan of this "most important election" business. Judging "the most important election" in advance is tricky stuff, because elections tend to become important during presidencies. For instance: the 2000 election seemed relatively unimportant. We were simply electing a caretaker executive to preside over a high-functioning economy and a peaceful, stable world. On 9/11, the 2000 election became the most important election of my lifetime by far. And we chose wrong. If we'd known 9/11 was in the cards -- if we'd known how important the election was -- we might have chosen differently. But we didn't. Then the 2004 election seemed like the most important election ever, largely because the cacophony of 9/11 still echoed through our politics, but I think, all things considered, that that wasn't a very important election. If we'd elected Kerry, the Supreme Court would be in relatively better shape. If we'd elected Kerry and Democrats had still swept into office in 2006 (unlikely, by the way), we'd have had relatively more success in passing domestic legislation. But that's about it. The financial crisis wouldn't have been averted, and Kerry's Federal Reserve and Treasury appointments would have probably acted in a fairly similar way. As for 2008, who knows? It could be that it's not very important at all: Iraq will wind down, the financial mess will calm, and the government's crummy finances will ensure that little of note gets done. Or maybe it'll be a moment of tremendous legislative opportunity. Or of foreign policy crisis. It's really hard to say. In general, presidential elections mean we're electing the person who will have to run the country if something extremely historic happens. Presidential elections are important, and any one could be the most important of your lifetime. That should be enough.
