wenBLOG

I’ve been a strong advocate on this page for reforming the current national process of nominating presidential candidates by their respective political parties. It’s my belief that allowing a handful of people in uniquely unhomogenized (before the christofacists blow a gasket that means unblended, not uniform or in this case untypical) states (historically Iowa and New Hampshire) to dictate who will be running the United States of America.

I’ve heard all of the arguments by believers in the status quo (usually Iowans, New Hampshirites and enablers from the two major parties) that keeping Iowa and New Hampshire at the front of the primary pack allows for true retail politics. I’ve been told that the early states serve as political laboratories allowing candidates to hone their messages and build their campaigns before having to perform on the national stage. I’ve been told that financially strapped candidates can focus all of their resources in Iowa in hope of gaining the “big mo” of a good showing that will carry them on to bigger bank accounts and brighter futures on the primary trail. These are all good and logical reasons for keeping things the way they are, but in the end that don’t serve our country well.

Whether the know-nothings of our political future like it or not, the current primary process is undergoing a metamorphosis that is literally evolving right in front of our eyes - and it’s being driven by the “invisible hand” of the market. On Wednesday there was news that Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani had chosen to not participate in the August Iowa Straw Polls (usually the first “official” indicator of candidate strength). His announcement was quickly followed by John McCain and Jim Gilmore who have chosen to focus their time and resources elsewhere. The underlying factor in the candidates’ decisions has as much to do with Mitt Romney’s organizational strength (and the finances necessary for mobilizing supporters - winning the Iowa straws has more to do with who can rent the most buses and offer the best amenities as it does with ideology, but I digress…) and exponentially growing support as it does with anything else, but it also creates a precedent that should not be ignored.

With the advent of mega-colossal, extra-special, new-and-improved, superer-duperer Tuesday on February 5th and a primary calendar that changes with the drop of a hat, candidates are now having to rethink their approach to campaigning. The value of Iowa and New Hampshire continues to weaken as more and more delegates become available earlier in the primary cycle. Campaigns are now considering where their message will be best received and how many votes that will bring them for their party’s nomination. In Giuliani’s case that means spending time in states like California and New York where his moderate views will be better received. In the case of Gilmore that may mean increased emphasis on South Carolina where his strong conservative views and his Southern gentleman demeanor will be appreciated.

Regardless of what occurs, it’s money that is making this happen. I think it’s unfortunate that candidates who run for president are better served raising funds than debating substantive issues. An unexpected result of this money race is that it’s “invisible hand” has affected the primary process in ways no one could anticipate. Even though I still believe in a more orderly process, as an observer of elections who embraces the free market - I love what’s happening. It means that politics as usual may be coming to an end.