An editorial in the Washington Post today -- from former Senator Warren Rudman, no less -- provides a different spin on the Iowa caucuses (and early primaries): they're an efficient and transparent way of cutting through the bureaucracy, and the involved candidate appeals are more genuine:
"The early primaries and caucuses offer no such shelter. Whether at a diner, a town hall meeting or on a factory floor, there is little separation between those seeking office and those who can help get them elected. Strategies driven by Madison Avenue and K Street tend to flounder. Attempts to provide cosmetic answers to complex challenges are often met with disaffection and more than a few lost votes, especially among those ever-important independents. On the other hand, votes can be won when candidates convey that they mean what they say."The real argument here is that there are trade-offs implicit in any democratic process. If the caucuses mean heightened candidate accountability, it might be worth permitting a certain institutional clumsiness. That's a fair argument, but there really should be a middle ground. What we saw last night in Iowa was democratic enough to pass a minimum standard, to be sure. Is that something we should settle for, though?
1 Comments:
I doubt our primary systems will be changing any time soon, but yes, there are advantages to the current setup of Iowa and New Hampshire (intimacy with the candidates and an emphasis on messaging being important are the main ones). Unfortunately, there are a lot of disadvantages as well (disenfranchisement of the later states, dominance of issues and voter preferences specific to just two states in the country) so it would be nice if the states got together and made some serious alterations to maintain the good parts of the current system while removing its flaws.
Post a Comment
<< Home