Despite the past irrelevancy of the Iowa caucuses, this year’s was completely different. The enormity of John Kerry’s share of delegates (38 percent) and the fact that insurgent candidate Howard Dean placed third, behind southern moderate John Edwards, suggests some interesting results in the coming primaries.
However, before one throws himself into jubilant ecstasy over the defeat of Mr. Dean in hopes that the barks and hollers of the good doctor would finally be silenced, there is a word of caution which must be noted regarding the nature of Iowa and its people as opposed to New Hampshire. Iowa’s economy relies heavily on its manufacturing and agriculture, and its populace include union personnel and the so-called “Reagan-Democrat” types who remained loyal to the party.
In short, Iowa’s Democrats are similar in many ways to the South’s, and its caucus members generally have a moderate persuasion. New Hampshire, on the other hand, relies on the technical professions, and its population is more sophisticated and dare I say, “liberal.” This, of course, means that Dean’s chances in Iowa were never very good, but his hopes of winning New Hampshire are far better.
In translation, Dean’s chances are better amongst the sort of person who confuses rhetoric with reality. Evidently, the level of volume and alarm in a man’s voice reveals his abilities to serve as commander-in-chief.
Unfortunately for Dean, the country is divided geographically into two parts: New Hampshire, and sanity. The Dean campaign has already begun to overhaul his image.
I suppose his courtiers and advisers hope that if people begin to see a gentler, nicer, even moderate Dean who focuses more on the issues rather than the caddy “I called the war bad first, Mom” strategy, then people will forget the raving maniac they have come to know and despise in the last several months. I’m afraid that outside college campuses people don’t smoke enough dope to be deluded into that prospect.
The biggest winners in Iowa are, of course, John Kerry and John Edwards. Kerry, who began the campaign as the front-runner, fell behind as time progressed and his reasonable, intelligent men proved less appealing than Dean and his fight for good over evil. Now his campaign morale has sky-rocketed and re-energized, and he is poised to trump Dean in the New Hampshire polls. Although Edwards, whose cheerful optimism played well with Iowa moderates, will probably do poorly in New Hampshire due to his ancestory as part of that race of better men (Southerners), he still has many things to look forward to.
For one, the South Carolina primary is shortly after New Hampshire, and has long been a deciding factor in predicting a candidate’s strength in national terms. Just think back a mere four years to what happened to Senator McCain after his stunning defeat there against the wonderfully witless Mr. Bush and his Orwellian double-speaker, Mr. Karl Rove.
The biggest losers of the Iowa caucuses are, surprisingly, the men who didn’t campaign there: Clark and Lieberman. The conventional wisdom was that with a Dean win in Iowa, Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards would be down for the count. General Clark would be waiting in New Hampshire to counter a Dean win by lifting the standard of the moderate Democrat, sallying forth legions of rational people to combat the chaotic forces of Dr. Dean.
Unfortunately, with a Kerry win, he leads that army, and his own status as a war veteran and experienced senator boosts confidence in his foreign-policy know-how. While Clark still has hope in the south, Lieberman is all but lost except to his most adamant followers. Not only is he boring, but he’s irritating as well. This goes as poorly with me as with most Americans.
All the caucuses proved their worth admirably this election year, and I for one have had my hopes lifted regarding the dismal state of American democracy.
Caucuses finally prove worth in 2004
January 23, 2004