The contenders have been uninspiring, the "debates" dreary, the intellectual level vapid to embarrassing - but the presidential campaign has brought one important benefit to the country.
It has moved president and contender at last to give consistent public attention to a national problem that hugely increases crime, ruins family lives, sickens the brain, drives many Americans out of work forever, afflicts millions with diseases that cost taxpayers billions, makes the United States weaker physically, poorer economically, ugly culturally, withered morally and an object of contempt internationally: drug abuse.The question is, will this attention, and follow-through action, last after Inauguration Day? How long?
If he is elected and does not make himself the leader of the movement against drugs, either Bill Clinton or Bob Dole will miss an opportunity that is unlikely to come his way again - to use the presidency to put a mark on history as a man who specifically and tangibly brightened the life and future of the nation.
No, not what he could do if only he had complete control of the Congress, or if foreign nations or domestic polls allowed.
It seems reasonable to expect a president to set at least one major goal that he could fulfill pretty much by himself, eliminating excuses and rationalizations, and then for heaven's sake go do it.
Both men have the ability to attain the goal of giving America the anti-drug leadership it needs, if they also have the courage to hold themselves accountable for achievements or failures during their term.
They will have the critical tool as they begin. The most effective weapon against drug abuse can be consistent presidential emphasis on drug dangers and how to fight them.
If the president is to be effective he must be painfully candid. He must tell the country it needs a no-tolerance attitude toward drug-selling and other drug crimes and a severe attitude toward drug use. He must emphasize repeatedly that winning the drug war means law enforcement.
He would say that drug enforcement must be combined with interdiction abroad and therapy at home. None of the three should be slighted or allowed to become so politically chic as to overwhelm the other two and bring the anti-drug structure down.
He would say enforcement will get tougher, not softer, that on interdiction he will ask Mexico to choose between being the largest exporter of cocaine to America and continuing to receive U.S. aid and respect.
He would say that compared with the cost and cruelties of crimes committed by drug users and sellers, enforcement, interdiction and therapy are cheap.
Meanwhile, the lobby for drug legalization is growing more prosperous. It will not win, but the relative handful of prominent Americans involved get attention and funds that drain energy from the anti-drug effort.
No law prevents a George Soros from donating millions of tax-free foundation dollars to organizations preaching direct or backdoor legalization of drugs.
Nor is there a law preventing donations to groups preaching the benefits of slavery, of which drug addiction is just one more variety. A candid president would say all of that.
The president will have a fine drug czar, Gen. Barry McCaffrey. He could also use a small council from politics, business and drug-fighting organizations. Its members would have something in common - the passion for the struggle against drugs that the president himself will need if he is to brighten America's life and future.