B-Rant

- submitted by M.R.Craig on 12/29/2007

Presidential Politics: Say No To Iowa & NH; Say Yes To...Sheboygan?

CONTRIBUTING WRITER: M.B.DARDEN

A friend of mine, a neighbor, had his aunt visit him over Christmas. She's from Iowa, in her late 60s (age) and is really looking forward to the Presidential caucuses coming up, she said.

I asked her -- a bunch of us were standing outside trying futiley to shovel packed ice from the side walk -- which candidate she was leaning towards. She said, Thompson. I said, how come, any particular reason? She said, she's always enjoyed him on CSI on TV (actually Law & Order but I didn't say anything) and he seems like he knows what he's doing.

I nodded, and didn't say, knows what he's doing?...you mean like having a couple kids at age 60+, thinking he could lazily enter the race as a B-rate actor with a secondary (largely unmemorable) role on TV, travel around the country in a sleep-deprived corpse-like stupor with the kids in tow, put his audiences to sleep during his consistently energy-sucking uninspired stump speeches, offer no specific agenda and, presto, ease into the Republican presidential nomination?

Anyway, it got me thinking. How f***ed up have we become? (And how f***ed up must we remain?) A tiny caucus in the state of Iowa and an almost as microscopic primary in New Hampshire to determine (or at least hugely impact) who our Presidents will be?

This is the Iowa caucus: a handful of predominantly elderly white women gathering in each others' living rooms and announcing to each other whom they want to be President. You know how many people actually caucus in Iowa -- already among the least populous and diverse U.S. states and among the least "representative"? Three people. My friend's aunt and her 2 bingo partners. Seriously...very few people, out of the already extraordinarily few Iowa residents eligible to caucus in the first place. Estimates range from 1 out of 20 potentially voter-eligible Iowa adults to 1 out of 75 actually caucus. You know how many that is? Almost none. You know how many African Americans, Muslims, Latinos, Asians, Baptists, people with disabilities, gays and various other ethnic, religious or other minorities caucus? Not almost none; actually none (or close to it).

And New Hampshire? There too -- almost entirely white (possibly the "whitest" state in America), older and relatively few among those potentially eligible adult voters actually vote. Want to pick a poster child state for least diverse and least representative of the multi-cultural, multi-dimensional American population of 2008? New Hampshire would be at or near the top of the list. In raw numbers its resident population ranks 41 among the 50 states, making up barely 0.4% of the American population. New Hampshire has the added distinction of featuring (according to a variety of data) among the "least" highly educated (and least professionally successful) residents in the northeast. For decades its primary media were run by local oligopoly, dominated by a near-medieval family run newspaper group for whom even the most minute incremental cultural, political or social change was the equivalent of insurrection.

Sounds like the perfect two states to be chosen for such a critical, decisive national role. How decisive? In the past multi-decades, no candidate who has not finished at least 2nd in either Iowa or New Hampshire has been elected President. Multiple candidates will be forced to drop out of the campaign if they don't succeed in Iowa; still more will be forced to do so after New Hampshire. Before anybody else in the country has had a chance to weigh in.

Here's the thing. It's totally unnecessary. First, let's agree the current system is ridiculous.* There are over 1000 suburban towns or town-clusters with greater populations and equal or greater representative diversity than the states of Iowa or New Hampshire. So, why not pick some of those suburban areas? (At least most people living in those will know the difference between CSI and Law & Order.) In fact, today we nominate the following suburban areas to replace Iowa and New Hampshire beginning in 2012:

The Chicago Burbs centered around Evanston ILL
The NYC Burbs centered around Montclair NJ
The NYC Burbs centered around White Plains NY
The Philadelphia Burbs centered around Ardmore PA
The Atlanta Burbs centered around Dacatur GA
The Houston Burbs centered around Friendswood TX

You don't like these particular suburbs? No problem. Nominate -- let us know -- your choices. There are tons of reasonable ones. And all have to be better and more appropriate than Iowa and New Hampshire.

Of course, beyond suburbia, there are countless U.S. cities even more populous and diverse -- and deserving. Not to mention 40 to 45 other states.

I know; people talk about this regularly...the incongruity of Iowa and New Hampshire; it's not breaking news. But isn't it time to finally do something?

We hear -- starting with Iowa and New Hampshire is the way it's always been done; it's tradition. So what? Slavery was tradition. People driving cars with fake "aluminum wood" side paneling was tradition. That didn't stop us from finally (belatedly) recognizing them for the stupid, ugly, unconscionable practices they were and eliminating them.

We hear -- yea, but Iowa and New Hampshire state constitutions mandate that they be the first caucus & primary. So...I guess if they also mandated everyone wear underwear on their heads, the folks of New York and California and Ohio and Texas and everywhere else would run to their dressers and put boxers on their heads? Iowa's state constitution is irrelevant and has no legal or other effect on what New York or any other state does. If it wanted, any state could schedule its primary whenever it wants. (In fact, Florida and a few other states threatened to do just that this year -- to pre-empt Iowa/NH; but, after being threatened by the fossilized national political parties, they backed off...although Florida, for example, did move up its primary earlier than the national party officially sanctioned.)

We hear -- starting with these small states is the only way lesser known and under-funded candidates will have a chance to break through. Because, for example, buying TV ads in these states is relatively inexpensive compared to the larger media markets of the larger states.

First, who says it's the only way? It's never really been tried differently -- at least not in recent years. At the same time, the media universe and the methods to get attention (and financing) are massively different and more diffuse than they used to be -- even from a decade ago. The internet, the proliferation of endless rapacious TV-cable news channels and the obsession of today's media outlets to find (or create) stories anywhere, often out of nothing, all work to the advantage of -- and can be exploited by -- lesser known "good story" underdog candidates.

Also, what evidence is there that TV ads actually work any more anyway -- if they ever really did. In fact, there's little consistent empirical evidence. Sure there are advantages to having more money and marketing & promotion resources. But there are all kinds of ways to equalize the candidate playing field somewhat -- some of which have already been adopted. (In addition, the notion that New Hampshire is "cheap" is misguided. To buy NH ad coverage requires the buying of Boston too -- since Boston TV blankets parts of NH. Boston is among the more expensive ad markets, hardly the ideal for a financially strapped candidate.)

In any case, what are we left with? A system that encourages our candidates to spend years roaming Iowa talking to every farmer, every coffee shop waitress, every cow and goat of legal age in the state -- and promising them every single thing every one of those people (and animals) ever dreamed of. You know the word, pandering? It was invented for how these politician-candidates behave in Iowa and New Hampshire during this early phase.

The process is stupid. It's irrational. It's laughable. It's grossly unfair to the rest of the country. And most people know it. So change it. If you don't like my suburban primary extravaganza -- I'll throw in Sheboygan Wisconsin and Santa Cruz California too; or what if I substitute Shaker Heights Ohio for Ames Iowa and Concord NH -- why not consider this idea: Rotate the early state primaries each election cycle. You want to have Iowa first sometimes (because the local politicos there have so much dirt on you -- national party leaders, etc. -- they'll expose you if you act rationally and abandon their state), fine. But next time, New York and Texas start. And next cycle, after that, Ohio and Oregon. And so on. Rotating isn't an ideal fix -- in fact it's got its own issues -- but it's way better than handing over such influence to the same two dip shit relatively modest states every four years.**

I said to my friend's aunt -- who actually later corrected herself, indicating she knew Fred Thompson wasn't on CSI; he was on Law & Order: SVU, she said...Actually no, he wasn't, but she was getting closer. Anyway, I said to her before I headed back to my house, what does she think about Iowa kicking off the election this way, having so much power?

She laughed. She said, she and her friends have been waiting for years for the big boys to come in and table Iowa until later. She can't believe they're still in the same position they were years ago -- particularly since years ago the Iowa caucuses had much less influence than today. But while the fun lasts, she said, she's going to enjoy it. People are bringing pies and cookies to her caucus and she's looking forward to the good eats and good coffee and the good debates. She'd have no objection if one day some of the bigger states had their turn at the start of the line -- it kind of makes sense, she said -- but she would miss the socializing and excitement and the great sugar cookies you're always sure to get.

Here's to great sugar cookies! And to great coffee and debate among friends. And here too is to something at least as great as tasty cookies...a better, more common sense expression of democracy. (Of course, if you want to send me some of those cookies, I wouldn't object.)

*To be clear, I'm not suggesting Iowa or NH are "bad" states. I'm suggesting their limitations make them far from the best (or even rational) choices to play such ongoing disproportionate roles in Presidential elections. In addition, state profiles sometimes change over time; and NH's profile is in fact evolving, as more people from neighboring states (like VT, MA, etc.) move there. Still, as of today, NH's changes have not reached a "tipping point" or fundamentally altered many of its defining characteristics.

**Of course, any number of alternative plans have been proposed. (And yes, I know, my suburban "plan" is a bit silly; I raise it only to make the point.) Party leaders need to be committed to a sensible change. If nothing is perfect or if there are challenges with any proposed new format, deal with them; but they don't justify sticking with the status quo when it so plainly makes no sense -- and in fact is probably more silly than starting the primaries in select suburbs....read more rants