January 03, 2008
After more than 12 months of campaigning, endless numbers of debates, and over $400 million already raised, American voters will finally enter into the 2008 electoral process. After so much time and money spent — most of it in Iowa and New Hampshire — a major question persists in the minds of many Americans: Why should the nominees for the two major political parties be decided, or at least be tapped as front-runners, by two states with a combined population of just over 4,165,000 people — less than 1.4 percent of the American people?
An expected 80,000 Republicans and 120,000 Democratic caucusers among the 2.9 million citizens in Iowa and fewer than 500,000 primary voters out of 1.2 million citizens in New Hampshire will once again have an extraordinary impact. But why permit a tiny fraction of the national electorate, influenced largely by an outrageously expensive, super-saturated media blitz, to determine who will be the American people’s choices to lead the nation in 2009?
And despite the blitz, voters are no more informed about the specific issues. All the candidates say they have solutions to the current condition of health care in the United States, the standoff in Iraq, and the looming economic slowdown. Even with all the candidates’ position papers, few outside the media or the Washington Beltway actually understand the nuances and differences among the various candidates. At the end of the day, for most of those actually participating in these contests, all they might recall are the slogans, the gimmicks, and the pandering. None of these will tell anyone about a candidate’s ability to govern.
The current system does not provide a real opportunity for voters to have a sense of what viable positions candidates hold. Given the political stalemate and lack of compromise in Washington over the past year, the entire primary/caucus system fails to leave anyone very sanguine about any of the candidates in either of the parties.
These first ballots, however, may well offer two important commentaries about whether there is change in the thinking of — albeit a tiny sample — the American electorate. First, will the two Democratic front-runners, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, truly be the preferred choice, or will the Democratic electorate favor “someone else” or “anyone but”? In addition, will any of the alternatives have the money to continue the campaign?
For the Republican Party, the question is whether Republican loyalists will continue in 2008 to endorse their party’s fundamentalist and/or evangelical agenda or move to a more centralist, economically driven, traditional conservative agenda.
Silver lining
Curiously, the front-loaded caucus/primary system may present a silver lining for American Jews. Jewish political giving, to both parties, is glaringly disproportionate to the actual Jewish population. Jewish voting in some key states can represent as much as 20 percent of the primary vote, particularly on the Democratic side. In key states, especially in Florida, New York, New Jersey, and California — all of which will have had their primaries by Feb. 5 — Jewish votes could be decisive. As a result, the snowball effect of the Iowa and New Hampshire elections for all voters in the second round of caucus/primary states will be even more magnified among Jewish voters, given the pivotal role they may play in some of the Super Tuesday elections.
As if all of these issues are not sufficiently confusing and troubling, waiting off stage ready, willing, and able is New York City’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Given his personal financial resources he can actually wait until May before he has to make a decision whether to launch a third-party campaign and start collecting petitions to get on election ballots for the November general election.
Bloomberg faces major difficulties beyond assembling his campaign team and organization. American voters have historically rejected third-party candidates, opponents will charge that he is using his own wealth to buy the presidency, and critics will say that he has not been battle-tested in the primary/caucus system. Bloomberg can reply that this year is different, that he is beholden to no one, and that the only election test that counts is in November.
One message is crystal clear: It is likely to be another fun-filled year. If we do not participate, we will only have ourselves to blame.