The Iowa Caucus: A Test For American Democracy

....Well, a test of what little Democracy that this Country has left


When I think of U.S. Democracy and our system of voting, the concept of free and fair elections doesn’t come to mind. The fundamentally flawed U.S. political system with its 2 dominant parties limiting voter choice (often between bad and worse), and its culture of facilitating corruption, doesn’t inspire much confidence that the politicians will really be accountable to the people they are supposed to serve. We live in a political system where the corporate media often chooses the next President; playing the same role that State-Run media plays in less than Democratic regimes overseas. Even a former U.S. President has admitted that the U.S. voting system does not meet basic international standards for free and fair elections. Elections in this Country have been flawed, and heavily influenced by corporate interests for the last several decades.

But recently, the corruption of U.S. elections seems to have gotten worse.
Today, we are seeing the same fundamentally flawed election system at work- a system where a candidate can buy their way into the White House. A system where the major corporate media outlets attempt to choose the next President by directly and indirectly telling Americans who they should vote for, or at the very least, they suggest as much with their excessive coverage of one or two candidates while giving little if any coverage to other viable candidates. Today, politicians don’t even make an effort to hide the fact that they have been bought. And the big media outlets make it pretty plain to see that they are favoring one candidate over another, and it shows in their unbalanced coverage.

A free and fair election system would have all viable candidates receiving equal time. But unfortunately this is not a part of the U.S. system. The media has gotten so good at influencing the American electorate that people are willing to vote against their own best interests, time and time again.

Combine a flawed, often undemocratic election system, a corrupt 2 Party monopoly, a corporate media allied with the corrupt political establishment, and a citizenry that- for the most part- is not politically engaged, and you end up with the situation we have today. A political system where politicians are not accountable, and election victories depend more on how much money a candidate has than on the substance of a candidates platform, plan, message and track record.

We are once again seeing the same dynamics in the current Presidential campaign. The corporate media has not only framed the debate- determining what issues are important for the voters- but it is also attempting to tell Americans who to vote for. On the Republican side, Mitt Romney & Rudy Giuliani are the media’s chosen favorites. While on the Democratic side, the media’s chosen candidates are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama- motivated by the ratings that a white woman vs. a Black man would create for the networks. Clinton and Obama have dominated T.V. coverage, despite the fact that neither would represent the best candidate that the Democratic Party could bring forth for a General Election. Hillary Clinton is not the most electable candidate for a General Election contest. We have argued the case on this to exhaustion… But the facts are clear on that point. Hillary also does not represent the “change” that Democrats, and American voters as a whole, say that they want in a candidate. She represents the old Washington establishment.

If you want more of the same Washington politics, the same elitism, the same corruption, the same foreign policy wrapped in a different package, the same corporate stranglehold on the political leadership, a healthcare system that leaves the insurance companies and drug companies in charge, the same atmosphere where voters have no access to their elected officials (unless they can afford a $3500.00 per plate dinner), and if you want a candidate who will struggle to win moderates and independents in a General Election, then by all means, vote for Hillary.

Barack Obama? Obama would also be very vulnerable in a General Election. As great as Obama is and as good as his message might be, he cannot generate the broad support needed in a General Election to win (and flip) purple States over a wide geographical area. The Democrats must be able to win purple States like Missouri, Ohio, Arkansas, New Mexico, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee & others. Obama is not the best candidate to get it done, especially against a well oiled, tested and proven Republican machine, that is licking its chops, hoping for an Obama nomination. The Republican machine would destroy Obama in a General Election, making the dismantling of John Kerry look like childs play by comparison.

But there is a Democrat who could get it done - John Edwards. But if you watch the news coverage, it is almost as if Edwards is not even running for President. I have been watching for Edwards coverage closely, especially over the last several weeks. Each night, Chris Matthews has talked about the matchup between Clinton & Obama, and has hardly mentioned John Edwards. The few times when Edwards has been mentioned, it has always been in the context of “Oh yeah…that guy… the loser”. There has clearly been an effort to take John Edwards out of the mix. There also seems to be a push to get Democrats to nominate an unelectable or less electable candidate. The Republicans would welcome (and greatly appreciate) Clinton or Obama as an opponent. There is no greater rallying tool for Republicans than a Clinton nomination. That would certainly stir the Republican grassroots, as Republican strategists have admitted themselves. In fact, Republican cheerleaders would not have to work nearly as hard to motivate the troops with Clinton as an opponent. Democrats would be doing the work for the Republicans with a Clinton nomination. But the Republicans fear John Edwards.

The Iowa Caucus will be the perfect test of the U.S. election process. The results will either be further confirmation of the broken & corrupt system, or a sign that Americans really do want change. Will Iowa Caucus goers choose the candidate who they have been told to choose by the media over the past several months, or will they make a choice based on their own best interests? Will Caucus goers choose the candidate who they have been told to choose by the media, or will they choose the candidate with the best chance to win the General Election? Will Caucus goers confirm the idea that a politician can buy his or her way into the White House or will they send the message that Iowans can't be bought? Will Caucus goers confirm that American media and corporate interests control the debate & the ballot box rather than the American people? Will Caucus goers confirm the worst about the American system or will they provide a flicker of hope that something different is possible?

All of these questions will be answered on January 3, 2008. I fully expect my view of American politics to be confirmed, but I am having a little prayer vigil in the back of my mind, hoping that I am wrong. I am hoping that Iowa Caucus goers will disappoint me in a good way and put some doubt in my theory. I hope they prove me very wrong.

But the Iowa Caucus is not free of flaws. There is the issue of Republicans possibly impacting the vote, since non-Democrats can participate. Could Republicans help to orchestrate a Clinton or Obama victory in order to boost Republican chances in a General Election? I wouldn't doubt that this might be a plan for Republican strategists. We've seen just about everything else from Republican strategists before....so this is not so far fetched.

But even with an Edwards win, the system has been rigged in such a way that a big money candidate can win the nomination on the “Super Tuesday“, when a huge number of States are decided at once. Once upon a time in this Country, before Democracy faded into almost complete obscurity, a candidate had to work at a more steady pace to win. Now it can all be decided in a very short amount of time… With the recent changes in the process, Iowa just doesn’t count like it used to.