Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
I Hate Iowa
The first contest in the US presidential primaries is a perversion of democracy that does not deserve to be taken seriously
If a gaffe, as Michael Kinsley defined it, is when a politician tells the truth in public, then Ohio's Governor Ted Strickland's recent comments fit the bill. In an interview in the Columbus Dispatch newspaper, Strickland said the upcoming Iowa caucus "makes no sense," and that he would "like to see both parties say, 'We're going to bring this to an end.'"
The reaction was swift and brutal. Strickland had been campaigning on behalf of Hillary Clinton, and competing campaigns sent the interview to reporters, hoping to get a bounce from the governor's perceived disdain for a holy institution of the Hawkeye State. By late Sunday night the Clinton handlers had issued a statement distancing the candidate from Strickland's remarks: "Senator Clinton has worked her heart out campaigning in Iowa because she knows it plays a unique and special role in the nominating process and that process must be protected," it said. "On this issue Hillary and Governor Strickland strongly disagree."
Strickland was, of course, 100% right. The Iowa Caucus makes no sense. And in a year in which the state is poised to play a bigger role than usual - a role the Washington Post calls "wildly disproportionate" to its size - it's worth considering just how silly it is that we take tomorrow's caucus seriously.
The silliness starts with the caucus's lack of democratic credentials. On the Democratic side of the race, the candidates aren't competing for votes; they're competing for "delegate equivalents", 2500 of which are spread across the state's 99 counties and 1784 voting precincts. There wouldn't be a problem with this if the delegates were distributed proportionally, but they aren't - they're distributed based on an abstruse and semi-proportional formula that creates big differences in the number of voters each delegate represents. This is not a minor issue. In 2004, there were 79.21 voters per delegate in Johnson County and 22.29 voters per delegate in Fremont County (the state average was 40.73). This means that the preference of a voter in Fremont is almost four times as valuable as the preference of a voter in Johnson.
Then there's the fact that a candidate needs to have the support of at least 15% of the voters in a precinct before qualifying for any of its delegates. Backers of a candidate who doesn't receive the requisite support become what are artlessly referred to as "spare voters" - that is, voters who are free to throw their support behind a second candidate. Caucus goers can make a plea for their support, but most of the wheedling takes place between candidates themselves: they cut deals promising hand over their spares (in exchange for god-knows-what) if they don't reach 15%. (Dennis Kucinich just urged his supporters to do this for Obama.) This creates an orgy of possibilities for how a candidate's statewide support could be over- or under-inflated.
And then there's the event itself. On the evening of the caucus, Democrats show up at the designated locations (schools, libraries and the like) and spend a couple of hours deliberating. When they're ready to vote they stand in a part of the room designated for a particular candidate. Then there is a head count. (Yes, a head count.)
You might notice that there's nothing terribly anonymous about this process. Indeed, some Iowans seem to think this is a good thing. While describing the caucus to reporters this Saturday, the political director of the state's Democratic Party related a "wonderful anecdote" meant to relay how "personal" the process can be: two women from Fort Dodge found themselves on opposite sides of the room and during the 1980 caucus and haven't spoken since. I suppose a 28-year-old grudge could be considered pretty wonderful. I guess I'm of the opinion that the secret ballot is just one of those tried-and-true elements of a modern democracy. In fact, such a guarantee is right there is Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Republican caucus is less awful - it basically resembles a straw poll - but spending a couple of hours caucusing on a Thursday evening is still a prospect that skews outcomes. (Do you work late? Early? Have kids? Out of town? Bed-bound?) For this reason, turnout tends to be incredibly low: this year's prediction is 10% for the Democrats and 12% for the Republicans. For comparison, turnout in the last presidential election was almost 60%.
It's annoying that this process exerts so much influence over presidential elections, and I'm embarrassed that people in Iowa actually they think "deserve" to occupy the first slot of primary campaign. Iowa apologists drone on about how caucus goers "are better informed, more aware of political issues, more involved, and in general much more the kind of citizens political scientists always want to find," and the Clinton campaign's Strickland statement swooned that "Iowans are entrusted with this responsibility because they take it so seriously."
But this is crazy. If anything, Iowans are more engaged because they are oversaturated. Tens of millions of dollars are spent trying to bribe, trick and cajole the state's residents into the right corner of the caucus room. The Washington Post reports that "some undecided voters will be contacted hundreds of times by the various campaigns" before the caucus. Hundreds of times! This coddling comes at a price: the time and effort that could be spent on the millions of voters that happen to live outside a patch of land wedged between Minnesota and Missouri. We should stop pretending that Iowans are the virtuous guardians of our election process. They are its spoiled and pampered babies.
Conor Clarke is a journalist in the Guardian's Washington, DC office. He has also written for the New Republic, Slate, the Washington Monthly and the American Prospect, among others publications.
© 2008 The Guardian
79 Comments so far
Show AllCritics of this article have done a poor job refuting Mr. Clarke's points. They only say get off our backs we have a fat gig here. Yes you do! Thanks Keyinside for your wise words.
Iowans are likely as good Americans as any others. That said the degree of BS and flattery/flatulance bestowed on them as being special or uniquely qualified to lead the country in the election process is outrageous.
It is more outrageous when a crappy idea like corn-based ethanol is foisted on America and indirectly the world as a buy-off to a handful of individuals while ratcheting up food prices for all. This is the clearest example of why this is a bogus system. Before ethanol it was increased farm subsidies to agro-business. And so it goes...
i wish a candidate would spend $400 on me. i'm not seeing it. the most i know of is that they provide light refreshments and snacks at the precincts but each candidate camp brings something. and its an hours long debating process so coffee and cheesy triscuits sound pretty rad to me.
okay lets ignore the iowa state vs state stuff and just only look at the caucus model itself. cons: its hard to get a large turnout because night workers, parents with kids, elderly, and iowans living abroad cannot participate. but surely there are reforms that can improve this. also, primaries usually have low turnouts too don't they? i mean its not like 90% of eligible voters will be going to hte polls in new hampshire right? anyone have any stats on presidential primary #s?
pros: people say secret ballots this, secret ballots that. i think thats a sham. in a real democracy, people won't be afraid to look each other in the eye and respectfully debate the issues and the candidates. although the way some on the left act, its no wonder others are nervous. "the left organizes a firing squad and then forms a circle and shoots each other". but in general old-school townhouse meetings where community members get together and debate the issues is more participatory than walking into a voting booth and pulling a lever.
the viability thing has some weaknesses like backroom dealing but its also a form of instant runoff voting and progressives are normally for instant runoff voting just like they are for participatory democracy so again i'm not sure where the valid criticisms of this style are.
alot of the biased assumptions about iowa are ignorant. yes iowans are rural farmers but also urban bankers and manufacturers and service providers. iowa city where i live has one of the highest per capita phd ratios anywhere in the country and the university of iowa is a top twenty research university. i'm not a fan of factory farms but there are movements here for sustainable agriculture, buying local, organic, etc.
iowa also has a strong peace movement that has been doing alot of civil disobedience at senators offices and even recently at presidential campaign headquarters. we did hillary and guiliani in november and there was a story on commondreams and democracy now about it. some people did huckabees office on monday, and yesterday 12 people got busted inside romney and obamas offices. the university of iowa anti-war committee is affiliated with both the Campus Antiwar Network and Students for a Democratic Society, and many people from Iowa are organizing anti-DNC and anti-RNC protests in coordination with groups like unconventional action and the welcoming committee. there was a "caucus of the future: direct democracy in action" workshop in des moines iowa today and yesterday.
as for our lily-whiteness yeah we are lily-white. but demographics are slowly changing as iowa gets an influx of immigrants and former residents of inner-city chicago. the question is, will we have a sane immigration policy where these immigrants are welcomed into our communities and have the power to vote? also, if we nominate obama tomorrow and richardson does well, i think the lily-white argument will have to be off the table. if lily-white iowa supports obama, then other people around the country will stop questioning his electability so much.
And I LOVE Iowa, but I HATE the IOWA caucus. There are better and more equitable ways to elect our leaders (I believe I just mentioned a few), not to mention the national popular vote on refferendums and amendments.
as to secret ballots, you say it without realizing you say it....
Yes, debate! Come together as a community and hash out all the issues, hell find out what your true issues are.
Then vote in secret. Anyone who thinks there is no intimidation in open voting has never been on a third grade sports team.
And you were doing well, then you just couldn't ignore the attacks on Iowa. It's not Iowa, they meant to say the Iowa caucus (whish is probably not Iowa but DC anyway)
"Why does it seem that all the commenters who disagree with this article are FROM Iowa themselves?"
Because they've got a sweet gig going. I would love to have the kind of clout that Iowa voters have. As it is, by the time the primaries come to me, there is no choice left. So yeah, I'm generally pissed at the "Iowa First" thing.
And yeah, I like dustinchicago's list.
Hey Conor, nothing could be much worse that the Eastern U.S. Democratic bloc. I would trust a man/woman who raises corn or kicks cowpies anytime over an Eastern Democrat. It's good for people like you to suffer a little. May the Iowa Caucus lodge in your gut and reduce you to long term psychosis. Smile...
maybe i'm wrong but it does seem like alot of East Coasters and New Yorkers are the ones ragging on Iowa. The world doesn't always have to revolve around NYC. Besides you're probably eating Iowa steak and Iowa corn.
See, Iowans... they're completely braindead and moreover content to be so, and even belligerent about it...
Don't take offense. The east has the same rate of braindead people.
No, the world doesn't always revolve around NYC, but wouldn't it be more fair if different states got to lead off the primaries each time so that the love was spread around a little more evenly? Might that not be a wee more democratic?
"maybe i'm wrong but it does seem like alot of East Coasters and New Yorkers are the ones ragging on Iowa"
With me you're wrong, I'm in the south. I would just like rotating primaries. Is that too much to ask? Why should anyone who doesn't live in Iowa or New Hampshire have to spend their *entire lifetime* letting others choose their candidates for them?
pleasethink - what you are saying has alot of merit.
But ultimately my point is that the Iowa is really just like the rest of the nation. Will never really feel the affects of war. I mean granted, we are in fact forced by the government to pay thousands of dollars taxes towards it each year, with which our country borrowing and in debt, means we're actually paying compound interest.
I always thought the midwest and the south hated taxes, yet they can't see, though it's clear as day, that the Government just took out a de facto Credit Card with each of their names on it, and rang up tens of thousands on the bill. The only real difference here in CT, is a few more know about it, but in both IA and CT most people are in denial about it. But the numbers don't lie. And CT just whines more about the war, but doesn't even know what the whining is about. We whine and then go away quickly like nothing happened. So what's worse, people who are whining, but apathetic, or people who are deluded, but apathetic?
So the South and the Midwest supposidly hates taxes, but they certainly have no problem when the Federal government and congress takes income from states like MA, CT, NY, NJ and redistributes it (de facto communism) through appropriation bills (pork barreling) to go to those midwestern and southern states.
And we all heard the GOP's excuse. It was for national defense. That's why however many hundreds of millions of dollars of our taxes had to go to Wyoming, and Nebraska... we all know they're a prime terrorist target, the terrorists are just dying to strike at these states.
I always thought it was no taxation without representation.
Gravel phrased it best "Tomorow, the Presidential Auction will begin."
How many of you people critizing the Iowa caucuses have actually been to one? I'm guessing none of you have. A caucus is the closest thing to a town hall meeting where communities get together left in America.
And as far as the process being long, drawn out, and complex.......... I've never attended a Democratic caucus that lasted longer than an hour. Republican caucuses are even shorter. And if you can multiply and divide, it's not complicated. Maybe that's just a little too difficult and burdensome for some of you. We don't have a problem with it in Iowa.
If I cant have all primaries/caucuses in the same period (video conferencing?) then I would like to add rotating caucuses to the list.
To all those criticizing Conor Clarke over his "choice" of headline, chances are he didn't pick it, his sub-editor did.
I would think that Iowa has more involvment in the war, being that didproportiantley more soldiers enlist from rural states these days- though I don't know Iowa's population size.
If people, not politics, ruled the land, wouldn't our taxes be different?
Ooops, sorry I let myself get dragged away from the main "Should Iowa be the 1st caucus and Is it important?" argument.
Personally, I think that Americans should leave it to Canadians and Europeans to decide who your President is. If we got to decide the last two times Bush would never have been President.
Ok, only partially serious.
I was in a caucus in CO four years ago. So that's my exposure to them. Frankly, I like them much better than a primary. Like the comment above me says, its the closest thing to a town-hall meeting style of democracy we have left in this country.
And personally, I like a long drawn out nomination contest over several months. Such a contest lets a grassroots campaign gather momentum. We essentially have a national primary now (Feb 5), and that massively favors the campaigns with corporate money that can flood CA and NY and all the other states with ads at the same time. If you don't have that corporate money, you either have to have built a large campaign and organization a year in advance (when no one cares or pays attention) or you are beaten.
But here's the really nice thing about the system. Iowa, Colorado, and maybe a few other caucus states will be the only primaries\caucuses where we don't have to wonder whether electronic voting machines or computerized vote counting machines have tilted the results. The results are there and plain and obvious by the fact that Obama has a crowd so large in his corner while Edwards has a crowd this large in his corner.
I have nothing against Iowa, though I would prefer not to live there; my three visits have been sufficient.
But it is RIDICULOUS to pretend that the people in Iowa are a representative sample of people in the U.S., or that the issues that strike them as salient are the same ones that strike everyone else as salient.
We could argue indefinitely about which state(s) are MORE representative. But the real questions are these: why single ANY state out? Why not have a national primary day, and then (as dustinchicago suggests), a follow-up run-off election?
That, too, is only a partial solution. We've got to stop letting our leaders be selected rather than elected, and put an end to having them bought by the richest and most powerful. We've got to cap campaign spending. It is nothing short of an obscenity that millions of dollars get poured down the hole of campaigning while our education and health care systems flounder of life support: what if 1/2 of the money spend on campaigning were actually spent on social programs?
I want public financed campaigns and campaign spending limits.
I want every candidate that can get on the ballot to debate every other candidate, one on one, that can get on that state's ballot. I want those that can get on every ballot or majority of state ballots to debate even more. I want debates and town halls (real ones) to replace tv commercials.
I want to get rid of superdelegates.
I want Instatant RunOff Voting as a PATH to Approval Voting (like photo rating websites).
I want electronic voting machines that have a computer printout. I want the voter to get a copy of their ballot.
I want the voter to doublecheck their ballot, and report it to any outside agency or activist group they want.
I want the vote counted at a national center and at the precincts.
I want on site voter registration.
I want a 2 round election system, like France. I want all primaries/caucuses to be on SuperTuesday, with the top 2 competing again on SuperSaturday.
I want Election Day to be a local, state and federal holiday.
I want to get rid of election entrance fees.
I want to adjust the Electoral College. I want the President to be the one who wins both the popular and electoral vote (if only because it reminds me of the House and the Senate).
I want a system that will allow a better pool of candidates- surley there are more people who are qualified. I want campaigns to be less ruthless so more people would run.
I WANT A NATIONAL ELECTION SYSTEM!!!!!
"We should stop pretending that Iowans are the virtuous guardians of our election process. They are its spoiled and pampered babies."
Exactly! Most of us in the lesser 48 states (not Iowa or New Hampshire) are not expecting to have the Presidential candidates personally fawning over us. We don't need candidates to visit each and every county in our states. We just want equal treatment.
Give us a national primary with instant runoff voting in 2012.
NEWS ALERT!
I just opened an email from INDEPENDENPRIMARY.COM.
According to them, ABC News is "excluding" most of the Presidential candidates from the January 5th (Saturday) Democratic debate.
Also, FOX News is "excluding" Ron Paul from the January 6th (Sunday) Republican debate.
Both news stations have "changed" their criteria to eliminate whomever they wish! These stations are using "the people's" airwaves. It is NOT in the "public interest" to eliminate any candidates from these debates!
You can go to this website and let ABC and FOX that you upset about this decision and will file a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Elections Commission if they limit participation.
IndependentPrimary.Com
ameliaintrepid January 3rd, 2008 5:05 pm
Well said!
dayjoe January 3rd, 2008 12:36 pm
"#1. You have to start somewhere."
"#2. There will be some weeding out of the 18 candidates which the rest of the country should be thankful for."
"#3. By the time we get to February 5th Iowa will be a memory whose sole function was to kick start the process and the rest of the states will, as their turn comes, go their own way."
"#4. As for red state/blue state…in 2000 Gore won. In 2004 Bush won. We consistently are represented by two senators, one from each party and how many other BIG states can say that?"
1. No, you can have a national primary. Furthermore, no state votes county-by-county for its primaries or general election. If it was such a great idea, someone would have caught on by now.
2. I'm not thankful for having someone in another state effectively cross candidates off my primary ballot. I should be allowed to have the same choices as you. BTW, if it's such a great service, let my state perform it for Iowa in 2012.
3. Voters in other states will have considerably fewer candidates on their ballot, and thanks to the media spin and hype, they will hear coverage that is very biased in favor of the winner in Iowa.
4. Thanks a whole lot for voting for Bush in 2004, and thanks a whole lot for giving us John Kerry as the other "choice". As for big states with one Democrat and one Republican each, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida come to mind.
"I'm not thankful for having someone in another state effectively cross candidates off my primary ballot"
Which they get to do every four years. Forever. In perpetuity.
Frosty bunny January 3rd, 2008 6:05 pm
"Which they get to do every four years. Forever. In perpetuity."
Hopefully, the other states will finally fight back in 2012. They should change their laws so that the date of their primary is whatever Iowa's caucus date is.
Blah blah blah....Conor Clarke, we're not too fond of you, either.
Plus, the FACT is, the caucuses are the method by which the democratic party uses to choose its candidate. Your beef is with them, not Iowa. Pick a better headline next time, a$$hole.
Iowa - 95% white - primarily agricultural and finance industry based - very little in common with many states. And to ween the presidential field in such an undemocratic manner! I mean if you stand up and say you're for Kucinich, your boss, most likely a Republican, might fire you. Sad but true...
We need a better primary offering. I like the four region one in which each region gets a chance to "ween" the field every four years.
"They should change their laws so that the date of their primary is whatever Iowa's caucus date is."
Yes, I predict a flood of this in 2012, even stronger than last year, *especially* if we get another president like George W. Next time, the two parties will not be able to stop it, either.
If we get another brain-dead, corporate puppet president, this country will need the whole damn political system to be scrapped. How long can you go with both the president and congress having approval ratings in the 20s? I'm hoping for a parliamentary system myself.
or we could try having a democracy. rather than the plutocracy we have now. this system cannot work with or without iowa.
what are the issues that concern Iowans most?
How many other states are on the same page?
What is asked of the candidates at these souped up meetings?
How representative is the population, demographically speaking, of the issues that concern the country?
After the election-
How does it effect the mindset of those who vote elsewhere?
Simply because someone got the majority of the vote, does it carry them through to the nomination?
If the rest of the nation votes with these questions in mind, and judges the candidates for themselves, then there would be no need to HATE Iowa.
It is indeed a surprise that Mr. Goodner gets gigs, with the starkness of his biasses, and strange slants, calling Nevada Latino and South Carolina Black.
If indeed that was the case, their voting sure does not reflect it. And who cares about sometime in the future.
We are determining a race now.
Nevada has a significant latino population, south carolina has a significant black population, that's why the political parties selected them as early nominating states. what are you guys going to do when 95% lily-white Iowa nominates Barack Obama and Bill Richardson gets a strong 4th place finish?
America is a huge country and is not homogenous. people from the east coast are different than people from the south who are different from the midwest who are different from california and parts of the west. i think its particularly interesting to hear the east coasters whine about iowa's first in the nation status. the fact of the matter is, no matter what state was first, segments of the rest of the country would gripe about it.
yes i have a pro-iowa bias. but my points about neighborhood, face to face conversations, and instant runoff voting are valid arguments that have nothing to do with iowa per se, except that they are models of participatory democracy much more inclusive than going to a ballot box in secret and pulling a lever. i do think we need to reform the iowa caucus so more people can attend like night workers, parents who can't afford childcare, iowans living out of state, etc.
Why does it seem that all the commenters who disagree with this article are FROM Iowa themselves?
If the Iowa caucuses are the fault of the Democratic and Republican parties, and not Iowa, then why did Iowa move their caucuses up to be well ahead of every other state this year?
Why can't the caucuses just be held on Super Tuesday?
If the caucuses are supposed to be about "Real Democracy" then why do I keep seeing stories on the news about candidates buying votes by shuttling voters to their caucus locations, providing food and incentives, etc? The News Hour reported they spend $400 per *voter* on incentives. Can the candidates without deep pockets compete in Iowa?
If not, then how is Iowa any different than primaries in other states?
I have long wondered why the blue party lets a red state choose the candidate they then do not vote for. Interestingly, they also let an out of state company tabulate the results, which could help explain how John Kerry went from 6% to victory so quickly and mysteriously. We should find a better way to choose our Democratic nominee.
From Iowa...
I feel your pain. Most other Iowan that I know also are saddened to hear adults cry.
It's not so much that we represent the nation, (thank god) but that we represent Iowa. I could go into greater detail here, but I feel that this is an emotional issue for most of you. So go ahead and get it out of your system, and be confident that the festivities will go continue on schedule in the land between two rivers.
"Hate" is a strong and terrible word, and one that is not worthy of being used by a so-called progressive. This article goes into write-only memory (ie, garbage bin).
I strongly disagree with people that come at Iowa like this. There are lots of problems with the Iowa Caucuses, but ones that can be worked out with respectful debate and reform, not this crap that passes as analysis.
People say Iowa is lily-white and unrepresentative of america. but when you combine iowa with new hampshire, nevada, and south carolina, you get a string of early nominating contests that are very reflective of the country as a whole. although iowa is nearly all-white, there are some areas of the state that will be majority latino in the coming years, and my hometown, iowa city, currently has 1 out of 3 african-americans in the junior high and high schools. iowa is also the breadbasket of the world and its midwest farmers attitude and rural-urban dichotomy makes up an important part of the american narrative and heritage.
people say the neighborhood meeting style of the caucus is unrepresentative. there is some truth to this and ways should be figured out to increase participation for the night workers, elderly, people with kids, iowans living abroad, etc who can not make the caucus. they deserve a chance to participate too.
but since when were neighborhood meetings undemocratic? im not the biggest fan of secret ballots. i think democracy is more participatory and inclusive when people look each other in the eye and debate the issues respectfully. this is a model of democracy that is on its way out unfortunately. its one thing to talk trash on the internet, doing it face to face in small towns, libraries, neighborhoods, etc is a great model (albeit an imperfect one just like any other) that should be employed more, not less. i seriously doubt anyone on the left would criticize parent-teacher-association meetings for being in-person. Having communities sit down and talk with each other about issues that effect them is one of the bedrocks of a democratic society. The Iowa Caucus model has alot of unexplored potential.
As for the viability factor that riles so many people up. Since when were progressives against instant run-off voting? Isnt that in essence what the 15% viability thing is? its close to instant runoff voting and maybe some reforms could make it better, but allowing people to pick their first, second, and third choice candidates is actually more inclusive.
most of the anti-iowa heat coming from the pundits is actually posturing, jockeying, and jealousy. every other state wants what iowa has. iowa wants to keep what its got. lets look at things a little more objectively shall we?
Iowa is a Red State. They sold their souls to GW Bush in '04. Iowa should be made irrelevant. I couldn't give two cents what a bunch of white breds think anyways.
"when you combine iowa with new hampshire, nevada, and south carolina, you get a string of early nominating contests that are very reflective of the country as a whole..."
You do???? Er... aren't all of these small or rather thinly populated republican states with rather cowed, unimaginitive, democratic parties?
Wouldn't, say, New York, Michigan, California, and (to represent the conservative south) Virginia, be more representative, if for no other reason that a whole lot bigger proportion of USAns live there?
iowa is midwest heartland, new hampshire is east coast, south carolina is south and black, nevada is west and latino
I agree with PJD.
The article, while rather harsh, makes some points. The title is kind of lame. Honestly I don't really even care if the article is harsh. If you're going to argue about this issue well then just argue about it, that's my position. Don't just cry that somebody said something that you don't agree with and it hurt your feelings!
Our system is ridiculous. Having family from the west-midwest I also have serious doubts based on experience that Iowa voters are all so well educated. Wathcing a bunch of TV commercials where politicians slander each other and sentimentalize behind a diffusion lens is not the same as being educated.
I'm sure there is a proportionate number of with it voters in Iowa, don't get me wrong. It's just that the state is sparsely populated. (And so per capita Iowa has even less chance of "educated" voters than New Jersey, where there are plenty of "educated" voters and we still elect liars to the Senate.)
The problem with the media hyping the importance of Iowa is that it compels the candidates to whore in order to get votes. And that is neither good for America or democracy in general. Perhaps it would be better to have a couple of diverse states vote at the same time.
Mr. Goodner I don't know where you live --- but Iowa with new hampshire?? nevada? and south carolina? does little at all reflect the views of people of New York City or most of New Jersey.
BTW New Hampshire doesn't reflect the "East Coast". It's a relatively sparsely populated, rural state. Why not pick Jersey or New York, or Massachusetts even, some densely, very diversely populated place?
If Mr. Clarke had a clue what he was talking about it sure doesn't show in this article.
#1. You have to start somewhere. We, Iowans, don't elect the nominee we just thoroughly investigate all the candidates and then stand for the one we hope will be the nominee.
#2. There will be some weeding out of the 18 candidates which the rest of the country should be thankful for. If you can spend a large amount of time telling Iowans what you would do when elected and we don't agree what makes anyone think New York or California would be any different?
#3. By the time we get to February 5th Iowa will be a memory whose sole function was to kick start the process and the rest of the states will, as their turn comes, go their own way.
#4. As for red state/blue state...in 2000 Gore won. In 2004 Bush won. We consistently are represented by two senators, one from each party and how many other BIG states can say that?
Every four years the pundits try to make this Iowa caucus irrelevant by complaining about the influence we may or may not have on the rest of the country. Why? My belief is they find the weather unbearable, the nightlife not up their standards and most of all most Iowans ignore the press and ask the questions that are much more relevant to the people than some millionaire TV personality.
And you can say we're too white but then how do you explain the showing Obama will get here tonight?
So get over it...
You think a red conservative state Iowa, and 75% of this country, has any concepts about the affects of the war in Iraq? The affects on the people. 1 million dead, many more injured and wounded. 4.3 refugees.
Some European writer once explained that the reason Europe and the rest of the civilized modern world doesn't engage in war so half-hazardly is not just because their leaders and government's realize it's counterproductive for the nation's security and economy, but largely because they and their populaces know very well the negative affects of war, such as refugee crisis, infrastructure damage, famine, watershortages, death, carnage, despair. They've all experienced it, or know very well how their previous generations have felt it. They know not only what it's like on their opponents end, they know very well what it's like to be on the recieving end of invasion, occupation, suffering, mass slaughter, mass refugee crisis, and devastation.
Whereas on the other hand, America remains on an Island or a bubble if you will; totally disconnected from reality, sheltered from the consequences and affects of the war (heck, 85-90% of the nation will NEVER realize the real reasons for the war, and on that note it's only partially based on oil - oil is just icing on the cake), a significantly REGIMENTED media and information which is in essence propoganda and manipulation, control of the message, and destruction and complete blurring of the truth.
Plenty of lessons to learn from Vietnam. But think about Iraq - the lessons learned, Americans don't give a shit unless they percieve THEMSELVES as being negatively affected by the war. They have thoughts and high hopes for the Iraqi's but ultimately they don't care, and have no real beliefs untill they THINK there are some negative consequences for themselves.
The twist is that they can't see nor hear how blatently they are being ripped off, scammed, decieved, manipulated etc. THey're completely jaded. But scarier is they're in complete denial about it. I work in advertising/market research, and have studied the affects of propoganda. Nearly everyone says advertising works, and is influential.... but nearly everyone says not on them - Basically the vast majority of people say advertising doesn't influence them, but it influences everyone else. Everyone thinks they're special. It's an illusion of invulnerability. The first step in propoganda, and to manipulate the masses is to give them the illusion of invulnerability - which is to say let them believe they are in control, educated, informed, objective etc. The person who believes all these is the easiest to pursuade, and fall for the propoganda. The media? Nothing more than an advertising outlet for a corperate agenda - which is to say, it's a propoganda wing of the oligarchal structure.
Honestly it's true the Iowa caucuses are only such a big deal because the media makes them into some barometer that they shouldn't be seen as. But people believe the media.