Iowa, the state with a long-running monopoly on the earliest Presidential caucuses, may soon find its pivotal role in the nomination process greatly diminished. In a political twist, this potential obsolescence of Iowa’s caucuses also could lead to more legitimate discussions of ethanol-based fuels and the government quotas that keep them afloat.
Yesterday’s New York Times reported that two of the frontrunners for the Democratic Presidential nomination, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and retired Gen. Wesley Clark, will not participate in Iowa’s January caucuses – the first state-wide contest of the 2004 race. These caucuses have traditionally been the first chance for candidates to assert their legitimacy.
A strong showing in Iowa results in heightened exposure and frenzied fund-raising; but a poor showing, or none at all, could spell doom for a candidacy still in its early stages. In fact, no Democratic candidate has ever skipped the caucuses and gone on to win the Party’s nomination.
Despite Iowa’s stranglehold on the early stages of Presidential campaigning, Clark and Lieberman have decided to skip this state this year. Both are gambling, hedging their bets that the absence of two major players will lessen the caucuses’ legitimacy – and perhaps their media coverage, as well.
While Lieberman has maintained enough early support to remain on the radar, his campaign has nowhere near the same buzz as Clark’s, and the decision to avoid any chance to be in the news seems questionable at best. Clark, however, has a legitimate chance to be the man squaring off against Dubya next year. If he were to win the Party’s nomination, despite skipping Iowa, it would be a watershed moment in American political history – one that would hopefully be the first step toward a more suitable nomination process.
The primary problem with the weight attached to the caucuses is the people who participate in them – activist Democrats, most of whom are on the left wing of their already left-of-center party. Consequently, Presidential candidates – who rely on the tens of millions of centrist independents in November – spend most of January pandering to these entrenched political elements.
In addition, the drastically magnified importance of Iowa’s caucuses and the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries lends a harmful regional bent to early campaigning. Taking these battleground states and winning on Super Tuesday is usually enough to win the overall nomination, encouraging candidates to focus on not just major issues facing America and the world, but largely on issues which play well only to a small, isolated audience – say, New Hampshire small businessmen or Iowa corn farmers.
So now that we’ve made it around to corn farmers, it’s time to address the issue of ethanol, a corn-based gasoline additive, and a large part of the administration’s current energy plan. The plan calls for the annual production of 5 billion gallons of ethanol – twice the current amount being produced.
This energy plan has been one of the most contentious items on the President’s domestic policy agenda, and one that has received an outpouring of opposition from most of the Democratic Party. On ethanol, however, most major party leaders support President Bush – mostly because most major party leaders have Presidential aspirations.
Bill Bradley found out, in his failed bid for the 2000 Democratic Presidential nomination, that opposing ethanol will get you slaughtered in Iowa. He did, and he was. This time around, Lieberman, John Edwards, John Kerry and Bob Graham all came out in support of increased ethanol production by June 2003, a full six months before the caucuses. Edwards even went so far as to unveil a new campaign platform at – you guessed it – an Iowa ethanol plant.
CBS news reported that all of this came in the face of loud criticisms from some Democrats, including those from electoral-jackpots New York and California, who fear the new ethanol will raise gas prices at the pump.
Hopefully, one of two scenarios will play out in the coming months – Clark (or Lieberman) will win the nomination, ending the notion that an Iowa appearance is a must, or the winner of the nomination will not rely heavily on his Iowa showing to do so. If Iowa and the other early-birds can lose their place on the top rung of the nomination ladder, and ethanol loses its undeserved place as darling issue of the ambitious, we all win.