It's campaign time again. In addition to the standard clichés by candidates - bad enough- we're treated to the bromides and platitudes of the media. It comes up every four years - "How come Iowa gets to be first in line?"
Outside of Iowa, I may be in the minority. But I think it's not only OK for Iowa to be first in line, but a good thing.
OK, as a native upper Midwesterner, I confess to some regional bias. But here are some reasons why Iowa deserves to be first.
A common complaint is that Iowa is "too old, too rural, and too white," and therefore not representative of a crosssection of the national electorate. The implication is that, therefore, Iowans can't be trusted to put forth a nominee that the nation can accept.
Let's dispel that nonsense immediately. If Iowa is "too old, too rural, and too white," how come they launched a young, urban African American (partly anyway) toward the presidency? The truth is that Iowans take the process seriously and do their homework. Those who take part in the caucus process know more about the candidates and the issues than the corporate media stars who concentrate on the horse race.
Which brings us to the next point - the charge echoed by critics that Iowa's caucus process is "strange." It may be uncommon, but there is nothing "strange" about a system where candidates have to travel the state, look voters in the eye, and talk to them in coffee shops, meeting rooms, living rooms and kitchens across the state. In my book that sure beats a system dominated by negative 30-second TV ads and what passes for "analysis" filtered through the corporate media.
In contrast to more populous states, Iowa, and New Hampshire for that matter, are small enough to enable - actually force - candidates to personally meet a larger proportion of interested voters. That's all the more reason to launch campaigns in states such as Iowa and New Hampshire where voters have demonstrated the commitment and effort to get to know the issues and the candidates. The large states with their greater numbers will weigh in soon enough. So why not let Iowa do some initial screening?
Another common complaint is that caucuses are dominated by the more liberal Democrats and the more conservative Republicans. Whose fault is that? No voter is barred from caucusing - in fact, every voter has the opportunity, and is encouraged, to participate. Those who feel strongly about issues, study them, and get to know the candidates deserve to have a voice.
Of course there are still plenty of TV ads in Iowa during caucus season. But there is definitely more face-to-face contact than in states depending mainly on a big media blitz. Is it too cynical to observe that the high salaries of media stars are paid by the very corporations that reap huge profits from the blizzard of political ads during the election cycle? Heaven forbid that voters might get their information directly from a candidate instead of being filtered through the corporate media.
I get more than a little tired of the pseudo sophisticates from the East and West Coasts dismissing the Midwest as "flyover country," populated by a bunch of hicks and know-nothings. Iowa is one of the few states to approve gay marriage. Of course not everybody approves of it, including many Iowans. But it's illogical to acknowledge gay marriage in Iowa, and in the next breath disparage Iowa as backward and behind the times.
Political scientists who study these matters credit Iowa with one of the best systems for decennial reapportionment. Consequently, there is far less, if any, gerrymandering in Iowa relative to less forward-looking states, indicating that Iowans take their democracy and good government seriously.
Then there is the observation that so many social conservatives turn out for the Republican Iowa causes. So what? I doubt that social conservatives in Iowa are significantly different than social conservatives and evangelicals anywhere else.
And the Democrats? I'm perfectly comfortable to have intelligent, hard-working farm wives of Iowa who do their homework serve as a screening committee and grill candidates across the kitchen table. But then again, I'm familiar with kitchen tables, having spent many hours doing my own homework on the kitchen table after milking time - before joining the Marines, followed by college and an academic career.
Speaking of academics, about that Iowa professor (not an Iowa native) with that piece in Harper's Magazine disparaging Iowa as unworthy of being first in line - I would have advised my fellow academic to clinically criticize the system if you choose, but don't speak ill of the people and the state that provide your employment. That's not smart, and is just plain bad manners.
And speaking of manners, cordiality is another Midwest trait we need more of. Those who caucus in Iowa meet in homes and meeting halls and talk civilly to each other - in stark contrast to the screaming matches and negative ads that lavishly feed the profits of the corporate media.
Although I would never vote for him, I commend Rick Santorum for visiting every Iowa county. Professional handlers and campaign managers usually discourage such tactics as "inefficient," not maximizing contacts in a given amount of time. Well, it worked for him. And if giving folks in sparsely populated areas the chance to meet a potential future president is "inefficient," perhaps we need more of it.
So again, I may be in a minority. But let the Badgers and Hawkeyes battle it out on the football field. This Badger and Cheesehead is perfectly happy to have our neighbors across the river do some initial screening on the political field.
They have proven themselves worthy, and capable of the task.
- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Monroe Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net
Outside of Iowa, I may be in the minority. But I think it's not only OK for Iowa to be first in line, but a good thing.
OK, as a native upper Midwesterner, I confess to some regional bias. But here are some reasons why Iowa deserves to be first.
A common complaint is that Iowa is "too old, too rural, and too white," and therefore not representative of a crosssection of the national electorate. The implication is that, therefore, Iowans can't be trusted to put forth a nominee that the nation can accept.
Let's dispel that nonsense immediately. If Iowa is "too old, too rural, and too white," how come they launched a young, urban African American (partly anyway) toward the presidency? The truth is that Iowans take the process seriously and do their homework. Those who take part in the caucus process know more about the candidates and the issues than the corporate media stars who concentrate on the horse race.
Which brings us to the next point - the charge echoed by critics that Iowa's caucus process is "strange." It may be uncommon, but there is nothing "strange" about a system where candidates have to travel the state, look voters in the eye, and talk to them in coffee shops, meeting rooms, living rooms and kitchens across the state. In my book that sure beats a system dominated by negative 30-second TV ads and what passes for "analysis" filtered through the corporate media.
In contrast to more populous states, Iowa, and New Hampshire for that matter, are small enough to enable - actually force - candidates to personally meet a larger proportion of interested voters. That's all the more reason to launch campaigns in states such as Iowa and New Hampshire where voters have demonstrated the commitment and effort to get to know the issues and the candidates. The large states with their greater numbers will weigh in soon enough. So why not let Iowa do some initial screening?
Another common complaint is that caucuses are dominated by the more liberal Democrats and the more conservative Republicans. Whose fault is that? No voter is barred from caucusing - in fact, every voter has the opportunity, and is encouraged, to participate. Those who feel strongly about issues, study them, and get to know the candidates deserve to have a voice.
Of course there are still plenty of TV ads in Iowa during caucus season. But there is definitely more face-to-face contact than in states depending mainly on a big media blitz. Is it too cynical to observe that the high salaries of media stars are paid by the very corporations that reap huge profits from the blizzard of political ads during the election cycle? Heaven forbid that voters might get their information directly from a candidate instead of being filtered through the corporate media.
I get more than a little tired of the pseudo sophisticates from the East and West Coasts dismissing the Midwest as "flyover country," populated by a bunch of hicks and know-nothings. Iowa is one of the few states to approve gay marriage. Of course not everybody approves of it, including many Iowans. But it's illogical to acknowledge gay marriage in Iowa, and in the next breath disparage Iowa as backward and behind the times.
Political scientists who study these matters credit Iowa with one of the best systems for decennial reapportionment. Consequently, there is far less, if any, gerrymandering in Iowa relative to less forward-looking states, indicating that Iowans take their democracy and good government seriously.
Then there is the observation that so many social conservatives turn out for the Republican Iowa causes. So what? I doubt that social conservatives in Iowa are significantly different than social conservatives and evangelicals anywhere else.
And the Democrats? I'm perfectly comfortable to have intelligent, hard-working farm wives of Iowa who do their homework serve as a screening committee and grill candidates across the kitchen table. But then again, I'm familiar with kitchen tables, having spent many hours doing my own homework on the kitchen table after milking time - before joining the Marines, followed by college and an academic career.
Speaking of academics, about that Iowa professor (not an Iowa native) with that piece in Harper's Magazine disparaging Iowa as unworthy of being first in line - I would have advised my fellow academic to clinically criticize the system if you choose, but don't speak ill of the people and the state that provide your employment. That's not smart, and is just plain bad manners.
And speaking of manners, cordiality is another Midwest trait we need more of. Those who caucus in Iowa meet in homes and meeting halls and talk civilly to each other - in stark contrast to the screaming matches and negative ads that lavishly feed the profits of the corporate media.
Although I would never vote for him, I commend Rick Santorum for visiting every Iowa county. Professional handlers and campaign managers usually discourage such tactics as "inefficient," not maximizing contacts in a given amount of time. Well, it worked for him. And if giving folks in sparsely populated areas the chance to meet a potential future president is "inefficient," perhaps we need more of it.
So again, I may be in a minority. But let the Badgers and Hawkeyes battle it out on the football field. This Badger and Cheesehead is perfectly happy to have our neighbors across the river do some initial screening on the political field.
They have proven themselves worthy, and capable of the task.
- John Waelti's column appears every Friday in the Monroe Times. He can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net
