At this point in a seemingly endless election campaign, most people may think everything possible has been said. In the face of this highly reasonable position, let me add a few reflections of my own.

First of all, you need to know something about my presidential voting record. It started with Adlai Stevenson, whose name still resonates with some in my age cohort.

Stevenson was the Democratic governor of Illinois when he ran against Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. Many voters (though not nearly enough) were attracted by his liberal principles, and by a wit that infuriated his opponents. (“Saskatchewan is much like Texas—except it’s more friendly to the United States.”)

Never one to shun a lost cause, I voted for Adlai again in 1956. Though I esteemed Eisenhower as a national hero for his WWII leadership, I still did not join the army of Americans for whom “I like Ike” was a proud motto.

Other luminaries I have tried to elect through the years include Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry. Sadly, I never got the chance to vote for any of them twice.

You may have noticed by now that they were all Democrats.

That was not by accident.  After all, I was Catholic.  As a boy I believed that all Catholics had to be Democrats.

When I discovered people in Ohio and other Midwest states voters who were both Catholic and Republican, I was shocked.  Distressingly, some of them were my relatives.

If you want to experience pain, I recommend watching the election returns with those on the other side.  In November 1972, when Nixon was busy trouncing McGovern, a close friend invited me to watch.

Without telling me, he had also invited two other friends who had spent their lives on the right.  Strong drink did not come close to assuaging my pain as it became increasingly clear how my candidate had lost every state but Massachusetts.

Now that you know some of my political history, let me share some observations on this year’s presidential campaigns. First, they are absurdly overpriced. For this, in part, we can thank the Supreme Court, or at least five of its members.

The Citizens United decision (2010) overturned recent laws and allowed corporations to pour unlimited money into political campaigns. Justice Stevens noted in his dissent that the decision, with its potential for political corruption, was “a rejection of the common sense of the American people.”

Second, the campaigns are much too long.  Our free-speech principles rightly allow political expression, however premature or untimely.  But could we not agree to spend less time campaigning and more time governing?

Increasingly, candidates for national office subject each other to months and even years of organized abuse.  The American electorate—already scandalously inactive—risks sinking further into dangerous indifference.

Third, one of the major American parties is in very bad shape. In the primary season, the Republicans presented candidates who were embarrassingly unqualified for the presidency.

Listening to Perry, Bachmann, and Cain, I returned nostalgically to the candidates of my youth. I opposed Eisenhower, but I respected the Massachusetts Republicans who supported him.

The actual nominee, Mitt Romney, whatever you think of him, is a cut above those losers. However, in my opinion he is not nearly the best that the Republican party should be offering.  (Many prominent Republicans seem to agree with my position.)

Ninety-five percent of Republicans in Congress (including Scott Brown) have pledged not to raise taxes under any conditions. That surely ranks as a sign of the party’s sad decline.

My hope is for the party to lose this election, and begin to rebuild afterwards.