NPR and some other media outlets have aired interviews with
Iowans on why Iowa always gets to go first. Who goes second get far less
coverage, but the same logic presumably applies. If what some Iowans say is
representative of at least half of its residents, most are an arrogant bunch.
More disturbingly but not surprisingly, Iowans are not logical.
The Iowa is best
“rationale”
Like most empty
political rhetoric, there is usually a big disconnect between rhetoric and the
real world. The rational for why Iowa and New Hampshire should always go first
and second fits that pattern. For Iowa first, one
politically active Iowan argues this: “The real reason we're first in the
nation now is because of what we do. We take this real seriously . . . . You
know, we ask really good questions. We ask follow-up questions . . . . We look
them in the eye like I am you right now. It's real. It's one-on-one vetting of
candidates. Are you for real? Not a TV spot, not money — what's in your
heart?" Ah yes, that’s the good old, tried and true, being serious, asking
questions and follow-ups and looking into someone’s eyeballs to see their
hearts rationale.
Looking into eyes and hearts falls short of former president
Dubya’s more sophisticated analytic technique of looking into eyeballs and souls tactic, but it’s a
good start. As Dubya put it regarding his tactic as applied to the murderous Vladimir Putin: “I
looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and
trustworthy. . . . I was able to get a sense of his soul.” That worked out
well, didn’t it? Anyway, eyeball and heart looking is one reason for Iowa
first.
Among other things, that vacuous drivel ignores the fact
that candidates don’t spend nearly as much time in other states. Most residents
(maybe 99.999%) in most other states have essentially no chance to look any candidate in
the eye and ask anything. In states other than Iowa or New Hampshire, there is
nothing to take seriously in person or any candidate eyeballs and heart to
stare into. How many cozy town hall meetings have all major candidates held in
California, Texas, Colorado, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Montana, Ohio, Nebraska or
dozens of other states since last June? None is much closer to the mark than 20.
Zero is probably the correct answer for every one of those of states.
Obviously, the feeble “Iowa is best rationale” says that
since Iowans pay attention, that implies that no one else does and thus no other
state deserve to go first. That’s sheer nonsense. And offensive.
Another Iowa first rationale rejects the obvious differences
between Iowa and the rest of the country. An Iowan rebuttal to that argument is
this: “Is it fair that Iowa goes first? What's
fair in politics? I mean, seriously. Yeah, OK, we're like 97 percent white,
and we're really rural, and we don't look like a microcosm of America. But so
what?”
Ah yes, that’s the good old rock-solid “but so
what” rationale coupled with the “politics isn’t fair” sucker punch. At least
the admission of unfairness strikes a chord of reality. That’s one plucked
string of the harp that rings true.
Yet another rationale is the good old, “if not Iowa then who?”
argument. The obvious answer to that non-rationale is easy: Anyone but Iowa and
New Hampshire. Who goes first and second could rotate among one or more states
or regions of the country.
An indefensible, irrational process
The enormous impact of Iowa and New Hampshire on selecting
presidential candidates is indefensible and irrational. In Iowa, it skews the
process at the national via an indefensibly arcane caucus process. For Iowa, only
20-25% of the voting age population usually participate in its caucuses. With a
population of 3.1
million and about 2.1
million registered voters, a grand total of about 420,000 to 525,000 Iowa voters
get to significantly decide who the rest of us get to support or not. Some of those
lucky few out of the over
150 million registered American voters have a chance to look into
candidate’s eyes, see candidate hearts, ask their questions, follow-up
questions and then decide in their cozy, small state comfort who the rest of us
gets to vote for.
To be fair, many or most Iowa and New Hampshire residents may
not feel superior about their unwarranted role. Americans are not always blinded
by their ideology or morals. Some understand the unfairness inherent in our system
of politics. With America’s corrupt two-party system, things usually are the way they are because that serves the two parties’ perceived
needs. If Iowa forever goes first and New Hampshire forever second, that is because
the two parties see that serves their own interests. Rationality and fairness have
nothing to do with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment