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!
Follow Martin Lewis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheMartinLewis
Bravo! Thanks, Martin for saying what many are too cowardly to say! Given the comments here, one wonders why anyone pays ANY attention to Iowa!
FYI: In the past, Hawaii/ Alaska often held their caucuses before Iowa, but I guess they're too distant to be convenient for candidate participation, eh? I dare say with oil in Alaska/ tourist industry in Hawaii, they are more relevant, with those issues, than Iowa. Now, rendered more irrelevant with Feb. 5/19 caucuses. The whole electoral system is outdated. If early primaries truly were an indication of the influence on the eventual selection/ election of president, clearly, Florida and Ohio would seem to be obvious candidates for relevance, given their impact on the past 2 elections!
Our election process does, indeed, impact the world..one need only look as far as the current administration to understand just how much! The sooner we move beyond this costly..both Clinton/ Obama have raised more $$ than ever before without a single caucus/primary vote yet cast..and outdated process, the sooner we might be more relevant in the world, with a president more representative of the US populace!
Get over it, Iowans & New Hampshire/ South Carolina primary voters, too, for that matter! Can we please get real? Go west of the Mississippi, for relevance in the world, thus relevance in the election cycle! California is the most populous state, the world's 10th largest economy! Surely, that should have more impact than Iowa for that "all-important bounce" effect on the candidates for President of the United States!
========MARTIN RESPONDS============
Thank you. Much appreciated.
===============================
=========MARTIN RESPONDS============
Thank you. My disdain is not for the decent people of Iowa (of whom I'm sure there are many) and the genuine "little people" - the ones who don't measure their self-value by slavering to get their 15 seconds of face time on TV. But I have nothing but contempt for this bloated caucus charade - maintained by politicians of both parties, the mass media-ocrity, and of course a large number of self-delusional Iowans. If I have generated a few laughs and muted nods of agreement then I am happy to have not restricted my comments to private circles - which would have been the truly elitist way to go....
===============================
No matter, I'll caucus anyway. I've done my due diligence, selected my candidate, studied the arcana of the process.Most of the people I've met have also read everything, heard all the candidates, read policy papers, made a decision--- for what the media is calling, even before the caucus, an unviable candidate. We are fond of the idea of America. We think our candidate is the most qualified one. What could be better for us now than a constitutional scholar, prodigiously qualified in foreign affairs, who has defended his senate office from corporate and interest groups for over 30 years?
The media has named three from the get-go. We think it's time for something other than Big Money to win.
These folks who will stand with me for our candidate tomorrow ask me, " If he doesn't get the nomination, can we move back to Canada with you?"
Perhaps a bit dramatic. Still, the whole thing looks mad to me.But I love the idea of America and so does my candidate.
Yes, we did. That's why we're not going to elect another Clinton.
=============MARTIN RESPONDS============
I was very careful to not discuss the merits or otherwise of candidates from either party. There are other places for such debate. It would be delightful if people were to respond to the specific points in this essay about the unfair impact of the Iowa caucuses rather than on the individual candidates.
=================================
=============================
===========MARTIN RESPONDS=========
"Duh" indeed. I seem to recall that America aspired to improve upon the limitations of the British system. America has much to commend it. Personally I'm a big fan of the USA. But the Iowa caucuses are a blight on American democracy. And would be considered a laughing stock were we to observe such shenanigans going on in a so-called Third World country. The sins of American "kul-cher" are visited upon the rest of the world... So fair game for comment.
=============================