Hot on the heels of their attention-seeking counterparts in Florida and Michigan, Iowa's political parties have jumped on the primary-moving bandwagon. Today, Iowa's Republican Party announced that, in order to preserve their state's status "first-in-the-nation caucus state", they plan to hold their primary on January 3. That's right. Instead of concentrating on the important things in life, like 3-day New Year's hangovers or the Orange Bowl, Iowans now have to cut their holidays short in order to get the voting underway.
That's not all, though. With Iowa's move, there's also the question of New Hampshire, a state which, according to the article I linked above, has a state law requiring that "no similar event can take place seven days before or after its primary". While the wording leaves room for confusion (is a caucus similar to a primary? Is so, how so?), the message coming out of New Hampshire is clear:
New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner has been coy about what date he will pick, vowing not to be influenced by anything other than what is in his state's best interest. Holding the Granite State primary in December is not "off the table," Gardner said earlier this year.
That's right. Christmas? Out. Primaries? In.
Personally, the whole idea of moving primaries around doesn't sit very well with me. While some people argue that early primaries in states like Michigan and Florida reflect these states' natural interest in influencing the presidential selection process, there's another powerful lure at play: money. With early influence comes increased campaigning and media coverage, which means more people bringing more money into a state's economy. According to one estimate, the 2000 edition of the Iowa caucus brought between $70 and $90 million to the state. That same year, the New Hampshire primary was responsible for creating 2,248 jobs and bringing in $264 million in benefits. That figure approaches a Super Bowl-level economic impact for a state not known for putting on huge international events.
Clearly, these moves by the larger newcomers aren't being made in the altruistic interests of the national political process. While Florida and Michigan are no more or less deserving of primary money, their actions set a bad precedent. They rob the primary process of its quirks and tradition, reducing the nation's political world of one of its few organic conventions. They also risk expanding an already drawn-out primary season. New Hampshire's willing to start on Christmas; what's keeping Indiana from pushing towards Thanksgiving?
Though I'm as progressive as the next guy, I think that this is one case where tradition should stand as is. New Hampshire and Iowa have a right to defend the customs that help define their states. If other states want a larger say (and a larger paycheck), maybe it's time to examine some sort of standardization of the primary system. Maybe we could split the country into four groups, then rotate each group on an early-middle-late primary schedule. In 2008, Group 1 has early primaries, followed by Group 2, Group 3, and Group 4. Then, in 2012, Group 2 steps up as the first primary states, followed by Group 3, Group 4, and Group 1. You get the picture. A system like that is the only way to keep opportunistic state governments from hijacking the primary process for their own monetary gain and political self-interest.
Of course, according to Dick Morris, the whole thing could be rendered moot if a certain someone chooses to run. Personally, I'm pulling for this guy.
No comments:
Post a Comment