Typical Iowa voter pondering who should be the world's most powerful leader...
I don't recall that the little boy who pointed out the non-existence of the Emperor's New Clothes won any popularity contests in the short term. So I expect nothing but brickbats initially for saying what is the incontrovertible truth. But I take heart in knowing that there will also be a (perhaps silent) minority that will agree with much of this essay.
The Iowa caucuses are a pathetic fraud. A massive subversion of the democratic process. A colossal waste of time, money and effort. They cause grievous harm to the body politic.
And worst of all -- because of the fawning, thoughtless coverage lavished on them by the media (hereafter "the Hard-Of-Thinking") -- they will probably have huge influence on the choice of presidential candidates. And thus the presidency of the United States. And thus the entire world.
So -- you don't have to be American to protest this charade. Everyone in the world could suffer.
The Iowa caucuses are about as relevant to determining the qualities of the prospective presidential candidates as the Golden Globes is to recognizing excellence in the world of film and television.
As most people know -- despite its fancy name, the Golden Globes are simply a set of awards given out by approximately 83 minor foreign "journalists" (read: free-loaders) who happen to be based in Hollywood. Representing august journals ranging from the Albanian Lawn-Mowers Gazette to the Zambian Smoked Goose Breast-Fanciers Bugle - these self-appointed charlatans have bamboozled the film industry into treating their utterly irrelevant prognostications into Academy Award barometer readings. So vast sums of money go into promoting this bloated exercise and the results are invariably analyzed with all the zeal accorded the reading of goat entrails in Eritrea. And about as valid. (Anyone remember Pia Zadora's Oscar win following her Golden Globes win in 1982? Nu? How strange...)
The Iowa caucuses have "earned" their reputation and impact based on one and only one criterion. It is the very first event in the presidential primary season. A position it accorded itself!
However -- being FIRST in a cycle doesn't necessarily make something either accurate or valid. And yet Iowa has used this fallacious status since 1972 to validate its pathetic existence on the election calendar. Whoever wins Iowa (so the convention goes) -- gets a "bounce" that will somehow impact the voters in the next primary states. People so frigging stupid that they allow something as precious as their vote to be influenced because of the prior choice of a few self-important hayseeds in Iowa. Wow! What a giant step for democracy and empowerment THAT has been!
The supposed influence or "bounce" only occurs if (1) the media is remotely stupid enough to buy into results that are statistically irrelevant; and (2) if the next lot of "voters" are remotely stupid enough to be influenced by the so-called verdict of the first bunch.
Unhappily for the rest of the world - vast sections of the media -- and vast numbers of the voters ARE that stupid. (Heresy to say or write it. But of course it happens to be the empirical truth.)
Let's look at some of the fallacies about the Iowa caucuses.
"It's democracy in action!" The concerned voters get to meet the candidates "up-close and personal" (gotta love that idiotic "ET" level of fanzine cliché!) and therefore arrive at an informed view of the strengths of the various candidates.
What a load of bollocks!
The USA has a population of approximately 300 million.
Iowa is a hick, farming state with less than 3 million inhabitants. Most of whom are apparently too stupid to move to important states. (But let's give them a pass on that.) Among famous Iowans? Donna Reed, Ashton Kutcher and Marion Morrison (or "John Wayne" as the reactionary draft-dodger renamed himself). It speaks for itself. The key thing about the handful of famous Iowans - almost without exception they left Iowa...
How representative is this state of the USA? Well it has approximately 2% African-American and 3% Hispanic. So that's our first clue. A bunch of white farmhands obsessed with Ethanol. That's a good representation to have such a significant say in who should be the most powerful person in the world for the next four to eight years. The opinions of Jed Clampett and Elly May. With a possible squawk from Jethro. An electorate that looks EXACTLY like America...
And how many of these hayseeds cast a vote? Well the estimation is that this year perhaps 250,000 to 300,000 may cast votes. That's if the poor dears are not too cold. (Such a smart idea holding caucuses and primaries in the depths of winter!!!)
So 25% to 30% of a bunch of primarily white farmers will choose their favorite candidates -- and THAT will impact how large numbers of equally clueless voters in the Granite State of New Hampshire (the "granite" may be a reference to brain matter) will make THEIR choices?! And WHY have so many of the people of New Hampshire got rocks for brains? (See previous sentence.)
"But..." I hear the foolhardy defenders of Iowa exclaim. "But the voters in Iowa are so involved in the process! They attend dozens of coffee klatches over a period of a year and meet almost all the candidates in-person many times so that they can make an informed judgment."
More bollocks. In fact - pardon my French - but what a load of "bolleaux"
Have you ever WATCHED these "meet-the-candidate" encounters. They get shown in excruciating length and repetition on C-Span. What you see are a bunch of third-rate, fawning political groupies who all want to shake hands and have a snap for the fridge door taken with a political "celebrity" to brighten up their dull, dismal, insignificant, rural lives.
They are like stage-door groupies. A bunch of gormless wallies standing outside the stage entrance to "Cats", "Rent" or "Phantom Of The Opera" with their autograph books in hand, waiting for a real "encounter" with someone whose face has appeared in People Magazine. Something to tell the dungareed folks back home. The vast majority of these people are stage-struck with their own inflated faux import as "deciders".
When they proclaim that they have "met" the candidates what they mean is that they have had a meaningless 17-second encounter in someone's living room. "Hi Senator - my cousin Jeffrey's next-door neighbor's aunt knew someone who was a precinct captain for you in 2004." "Why thank you for your support. Keep up the good work". That really sears itself into the brain of the candidate. Like asking Bruce Springsteen if he remembers you waving at him when you were in the 437th row of his 6th night at Giants Stadium on the "Born In The USA" tour in 1985. "Why SURE I do! Thanks for buying my albums!"
These people have ZERO impact on the candidates - except as flesh to press in the hope that they might help to convince their family, friends and neighbors that the candidate "is so nice in person." What do you expect? To be goosed on the bum? Or to be told to get your foul, flu-laden, rural breath out of their face? OF COURSE THEY ARE NICE TO YOU. THEY WANT YOUR VOTE! You haven't "met" them. You don't "know" them. And they have not listened to a single word you have said. Unless you have an "inspiring" Readers Digest type story relating to health care or education that they can co-opt for a stump speech.
The delusional self-importance of these Iowa voters is equivalent to that of the intellectually impaired who stand with their handwritten bits of cardboard outside the studios of "Good Morning America" and the "Today" show. Apparently the fact that the person's mother is having a birthday needs to be spelled out with colored sharpies on the inside of a cornflakes carton and hoisted up to be seen by 30 or 40 million unrelated American TV viewers who don't know that the person's mother exists - and care even less. (Suggestion: Instead of spending money on air tickets and New York hotels hoping to wave your utterly uninteresting personal greeting on TV - why not invest in a cheap Hallmark card and a 41-cent stamp? Who knows... It might actually be seen by your mother...)
And just as those morning shows encourage this insane behavior -- on the grounds of faux populism "let's see some REAL folks!" -- so too, do the political shows on the cable TV outlets fan this nonsensical charade. We see all the Willard Scotts of the political TV world -- affecting to be "inspired" by all the "real people" who are so involved in the process. (Translation: nobodies slavering for face time on TV.)
So -- when the hype reaches its crescendo on Thursday evening and Friday morning --just remember what it's all about.
LESS THAN ONE PERCENT of America's 300 million citizens -- in an unrepresentative state so scrabble-dirt poor that it only has one consonant in its name -- have let us know which candidate they got to shake sweaty hands with the most times at a series of coffee klatches and hoe-downs. And THAT will probably have a significant impact on how the citizens of New Hampshire and South Carolina vote. And thus spake the American electorate.
Whoop-de-doo. Democracy works!