Opinion: This is the model we want Iraq to follow?
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
What did the Founding Fathers have in mind?
For as long as we can remember, that question has spurred heated disputes and lively debates in the political world. But here’s something we think most can agree on: Jefferson, Madison and the rest of those sage fellows did NOT envision the increasingly elongated and enervating process for picking our next president.
A system that already seemed out-of-whack took another turn for the worse today with the announcement by South Carolina Republicans that they would move their presidential primary up to Jan. 19. In the domino effect that apparently will set off, the prospect looms that Iowa --- anxious not to lose the prestige and economic benefits that flow from conducting the kickoff vote in the presidential race --- will move its caucuses into December!
Happy holidays, Hawkeye State.
[Update: For those looking for a villain in this particular case, the chief culprit is Florida. Why are we not surprised?
The South Carolinians felt compelled to reschedule their contest from early February because the Sunshine State recently slottted its primary for Jan. 29. And why did Florida do this? Because it wanted to distinguish itself from the raft of states --- including California --- with primaries on Feb. 5. So it goes, a constant game of one-upsmanship that there’s no reason to think will abate in future cycles.]
We won’t walk through the various calendar scenarios now floating about for this campaign or speculate over how the changes could help/hurt Candidate X or Candidate Y because, frankly, all that seems beside the larger point. Which is this: narrow, parochial state interests have hijacked the national nominating process, the two major parties seem powerless to stop it and it’s hard to see how the country’s interests are served by a campaign that starts earlier and earlier and, as a result, will only get costlier and costlier.
It had struck us as an odd choice, earlier this week, when moderator Keith Olbermann chose to end the debate of Democratic White House contenders in Chicago with this question: ‘As president, will it disturb you that the race to replace you will begin possibly only days into your first term?’
Now, it seems eerily prescient.
A review of the answers Olbermann elicited makes us even more despairing. Here’s Bill Richardson’s response, and it was fairly typical: ‘Yes, it would trouble me. But what I would want to do is bring this country together. We need --- enormous challenges to face. It’s got to be done in a bipartisan way. I believe that I’ve got the most experience in foreign policy. I believe I’ve got the most executive experience as a governor.’
This is what we want more of?
-- Don Frederick