Perspective

Putting Iowa, N.H. in their place

By PHILIP GAILEY, Editor of Editorials
Published January 6, 2008

Iowa caucusgoers strutted their stuff last week, deciding which presidential candidates would live or die before the rest of us get our turn to vote. If you were planning to vote for Joe Biden or Chris Dodd in your state's Democratic primary, you'd better find yourself another candidate. Biden and Dodd dropped out of the race after their weak showings in Iowa. Neither let out a Howard Dean scream. On Tuesday, New Hampshire voters will throw their weight around in the nation's first presidential primary to further winnow the field.

If some big-state party officials have their way, the big losers of this primary season could include Iowa and New Hampshire. The clamor to put these two small states in their place is growing, and this could be the last primary season where these two electoral midgets exert a wildly disproportionate influence on the presidential nominating process.

Some foreign observers wonder what all the fuss is about. Our presidential nominating process, for all its flaws, looks pretty good to them. The Economist, the London-based news magazine, recently said, "Americans will make a freer and better-informed choice than citizens in other democracies ever can." For example, it noted the "coronation" of Gordon Brown as the new British prime minister "without a single vote."

In the end, the magazine said, it doesn't really matter which states "start the ball rolling, so long as they are small." Iowa and New Hampshire traditionally have been the kickoff states, and their voters will tell you they have earned the right to go first because they take their role seriously. Their position is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

The Economist makes a legitimate point: "What happens in these two states does not stay there. Thanks to the Internet, anyone can scrutinize every aspect of the 'retail politics' stage of the American presidential contest as it is played out in Iowa and New Hampshire. Gaffes, slurs, foolish e-mail, the commentaries of local papers and the blogs of humble voters are all available to the global village."

True enough, but if these little states are just a stage, why not move the whole thing to Hollywood studios with the appropriate background scenery and props to create the illusion of campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire. On the Iowa set, for example, a large sow could be kept in a pen for candidates who want to scratch her ears, or better still, her belly. Presidential hopefuls could sit on bales of hay picking their teeth with straws while laying out their foreign policy or health care plan. New Hampshire, of course, would need a town hall facade or main street cafe. Starving actors could play the role of voters following scripts written by the candidates' consultants and pollsters. The national television audience could call in their votes, like they do on American Idol. Hollywood is always looking for a new reality show.

Would it really be all that different from the way politics is practiced these days?

The resentment toward Iowa and New Hampshire is not rooted in jealousy but fair play. Their voters work hard at informing themselves about issues and sizing up candidates. The complaint is that they refuse to let voters in other states play a similar role. They feel it is their exclusive right to limit the presidential choices of voters in large states that are more representative of the nation as a whole. Sometimes they can be vindictive and petty about it.

For example, it was Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats who threatened to punish their party's presidential hopefuls if they dared set food in Florida to campaign fundraising was okay. They took it upon themselves to punish the nation's fourth largest state for stepping out of line by moving its primary from Feb. 5 to Jan. 29. So the only way Florida voters can speak with a Democratic candidate is to show up at a fundraiser with their checkbooks out.

Iowans don't seem too worried that they will lose their place at the front of the line. David Yepsen, a political columnist for the Des Moines Register, wrote last week: "Is this the last time Iowa hosts a caucus? Perhaps. Someday the country may figure out a better way to do this, and when that happens, Iowans shouldn't be so parochial as to fight it. But neither should we be so stupid as to just let some other state or region grab this away. If you love money in politics, you'll love a regional, national or big-state primary. This is still a place where up-close politics is important."

But is Iowa the only place?

Yepsen is betting "the country won't agree on a better way to do this" and that 2012 presidential wanna-bees "will be showing up (in Iowa) in less than a year, in December 2008."

He may be right. But something has to give.

Philip Gailey's e-mail address is gailey@sptimes.com.

[Last modified January 5, 2008, 20:53:23]