hey have traveled from coast to coast, visited hundreds of schools, community centers, and factories, delivered hundreds of speeches, and debated three times - and still they have managed to ignore some of the most vital issues facing the nation.
For months Governor George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore have talked about Social Security and Medicare, discussed school vouchers and college loans, preached about violence and values. All important things, to be sure. But many of those issues are concerns of the political class - issues growing out of taxes and budgets and income distribution - rather than the middle class.
From beginning to end, the steady diet of traditional fare has given the campaign a warmed-over feeling, as if it were being conducted in a parallel universe. This was a 20th-century presidential campaign conducted in the 21st century.
The issues that never made it to the stump are, in many ways, far more compelling than the ones that did:
Reinventing life: Gore has spent a lot of time on the campaign trail talking about reinventing government, his signature effort in the vice presidency. But during his eight years in the administration, a reinvention of a far greater significance has been accomplished. Researchers have reinvented the way we look at life.
By mapping the human genome, scientists have in effect discovered the instruction book for the creation of life, or, in the words of President Clinton, learned ''the language in which God created life.'' But this discovery, one of the most difficult scientific undertakings ever, raises questions that are completely outside the traditional boundaries of politics. Some will be settled by research, others by the natural course of scientific inquiry, still others through the complex interaction of culture and science.
But some will have to be adjudicated by politics (or, its extension, the courts), which is how we resolve questions that the market can't answer. These and more now nag at the human mind and conscience: Can researchers alter the way humans develop? Should they? Should the research be regulated? If so, by whom? Should the benefits of genetic research be available to all, and at what price?
The two men who for months have been seeking the presidency haven't even scratched the surface of these issues, which arguably have more far-reaching implications for aging, for example, than does the dispute over the marginal difference between their two Social Security proposals.
The new world trade order: Both candidates generally support free trade initiatives, and thus there has been little dispute on whether to continue to work to tear away trade barriers and create a bigger international market with fewer restrictions. But many Americans - and not only just those supporting candidates such as Ralph Nader and Patrick J. Buchanan - do not agree, and thus the silence on these issues represents a false sense of agreement.
Not discussed were: Do traditional intellectual-property laws apply in international trade? On the Internet? Is there a need to overhaul US copyright law, which itself was overhauled only two years ago? Is the United States too dependent on international trade? Does the trade deficit, which will likely exceed $350 billion by the end of the year, matter? Can the United States remain a safe haven for foreign investment? What international restrictions should govern the merger of multinational companies with American headquarters? Should limits be placed on the purchase of US telecommunications interests by foreign companies? Not a peep on any of that in any debate.
National security threats: Bush and Gore have spoken in general terms about their determination to beef up US military strength, to enhance the lifestyles of the men and women who defend US security, and to defend US interests.
But neither has presented his vision of how to combat threats to security even more dire than the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. These include chemical and biological warfare and the use of nuclear weapons by terrorists not affiliated with any recognized nation-state.
The candidates, moreover, have not addressed threats that are not faraway fancies but that face the nation with current, state-of-the-art technology, including cyberterroism.
The primacy of privacy: Americans have always been fiercely protective of their privacy and, at the same time, fiercely supportive of technological advances. Throughout history these two impulses have been in conflict; the telephone, for example, extended Americans' reach (and extended Americans' sense of community), but it also invaded Americans' privacy. New technologies give individuals and businesses new tools for commerce and communication even as they deprive individuals and consumers of their privacy. The resolution of this issue will help determine the shape of American domestic life and the state of American civil liberties; it has hardly been mentioned by the candidates.
Unplanned obsolescence: The American political system was created in the 18th century and has shown remarkable suppleness and sturdiness. It was born in a period of slavery, for example, and breathes vigorously in an era of rights and liberation. Still, some theorists worry that an 18th-century document and the government it created may be peculiarly unsuited to the challenges of the 21st century. As commercial innovation outpaces political change, many important questions emerge. None is more pressing than this one: Are American regulatory agencies out of synch with the regulatory challenges posed by technology?
What is life? Bush's views on abortion are well known: The Texas governor generally opposes abortion rights. Abortion is an important issue and is likely to remain so for many years. But new issues involving the definition of life are rapidly crowding onto the agenda - but didn't reach the campaign trail.
These issues, carefully examined, might also help us sort out our views on contemporary moral questions. Among them: Should humans be created and harvested for spare parts for other humans? Are the 100,000 or so human embryos that are frozen in fertility clinics actual human lives or can they be disposed of? Are they owned by the parents who produced them or do they have rights of their own?
And one final question: Aren't these questions more significant than the ones the candidates have been talking about?
