Is Iowa The Right Choice To Go First? Gov. Strickland Says No.

Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland made some comments regarding Iowa to the Columbus Dispatch:

Beginning the presidential nominating process in Iowa, as will occur this week, “makes no sense,” says Gov. Ted Strickland, who recently campaigned there for Sen. Hillary Clinton.

“I’d like to see both parties say, ‘We’re going to bring this to an end,’ ” he said.

First, the problem is that no one asks these questions except just before or after primary season. That’s why the Michigan and Florida primaries are so screwed up. But we’ve been over that.

The problem with the ‘bring it up when it happens’ theory is that the real questions (why do two random states get to whittle down candidates almost completely?) get lost in the politics of the moment; namely, that Strickland happens to be a Clinton supporter who campaigned for Clinton this past week in Iowa.

This is the record of the flap in the New York Times:

At every campaign stop across eastern Iowa, Mr. Strickland repeated a message of electability, declaring: “She is the most tested politician in America.” He hailed the Iowa caucuses, saying the state served as a bookend to the traditional battleground role that Ohio plays in the general election.

Yet when he returned home to Columbus, he seems to have veered a bit off script.

In an interview with The Columbus Dispatch, Mr. Strickland said that starting the presidential nominating contest in Iowa “makes no sense.” He added, “I’d like to see both parties say, ‘We’re going to bring this to an end.’”

The Clinton campaign was quick to distance itself from his remarks, issuing a statement declaring “Hillary and Governor Strickland strongly disagree.”

“Senator Clinton has worked her heart out campaigning in Iowa because she knows it plays a unique and special role in the nominating process and that role must be protected,” said Mo Elleithee, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton. “As she has said many times she is glad Iowans are entrusted with this responsibility because they take it so seriously.”

Some thoughts, numbered one through eight for organization:

1) Controversies like this need to be discussed more than a week before or after the Caucus.

2) Even so, the focus, or at least some focus, should be on the substance of the comments, not the political consequences. The NYT report indicated only that there are lots of criticisms of Iowa and New Hampshire. Were they explored? Substantiated? Criticized? Compared? Nope, nothing of the sort. No one is asking if Iowans are good pundits. Or whether they deserve to always go first.

3) Presidential candidates can obviously say absolutely nothing principled on the matter; pandering is an absolute necessity. Clinton’s argument that Iowans pay closer attention could be confusing the cause and effect. Clinton is smart enough to know that; she just can’t even make that suggestion, or risk losing the favor of Iowans, as Howard Dean did when comments about him criticizing Iowa surfaced four years ago. In essence, anyone with future aspirations has an incentive to prevent any reform of the system. And given the close political relationships that develop, there’s little reason for the likes of former politicians such as Bill Clinton or George H.W. Bush to speak up. In essence, nearly the entire political system has a vested interest in Iowa going first, especially the national political system.

4) Other states are the ones without a vested interest in going first. That’s great, but even when they take action, like Michigan or Florida, the parties take action against them. Furthermore, state governments are not nearly as influential as they were in the past. How many governors do you know outside of your own or those who have been in the news lately? Exactly.

5) The only concern that this should raise is for Ohioans like me; why did Strickland praise the caucus in Iowa and trash it at home? Would he pander similarly to Ohioans?

6) Let’s stop pretending Iowans are perfect at picking a president or are perfectly selfish. They’re not. One word: ethanol. If the first two states were New Hampshire and Idaho, there would be arguments about potato policy, not ethanol policy. Nearly every theory of politics shows that people vote in what they believe are their best interests, not in a more general sense. Iowans are selfish and ask about things that benefit Iowa. That’s fine. The problem is that everyone tries to pretend that is what is in the best interest of the country. Often, it’s not.

7) From the original Columbus Dispatch article:

Matthew Masur, a history professor at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H., with a master’s degree and doctorate from Ohio State University, said he quickly heard why New Hampshire deserved to be at the head of the line after moving there in 2004.

“When I got here after my wife and I spent eight years in Columbus, I think we both were really pretty skeptical,” he said. “One thing that really bothered me was that people in New Hampshire really feel entitled to the first-in-the-nation status.”

He acknowledged residents’ high rate of participation in the political process and their substantial knowledge of the candidates, but said, “That could be as much an effect rather than an argument for” New Hampshire holding the first primary. “Perhaps any state would embrace it.”

That is not rocket science. But candidates cannot even dare to express this view or everyone turns against them; that of course reinforces that last point, that voters are selfish.

Is retail politics always better than leading in giant states? Perhaps. But that does not mean one state always must lead; secondly, the immediacy of Feb. 5 after the early states reinforces the monetary lead of the other candidates. But more importantly, the money primary can in many ways be good. Why? It allows for citizens across the country to give input before a primary election, to influence voters. Instead of Iowa or NH or a large state narrowing blindly, it allows for citizens to weigh in financially with what candidates are viable. It’s a counterintuitive thought, but money in politics might actually be a good thing.

The ultimate point is that a long hard look needs to be given at the primary process at a time when reform is possible; the last minute moves of Florida and Michigan and words of Gov. Strickland will never bring about even a meaningful discussion, since more people are inanely interested in how this effects Clinton. (And it has NOTHING to do with her memo of this summer of skipping Iowa. Zilch. Nada.)

Perhaps at the right time, meaningful reform will happen. But more likely is that the “Victorian Parlor Games” will continue, to quote some interlopers.

Related at 2008 Central: