The weakest part of our political system is the presidential-nomination process. And it’s not coincidental that it’s the part of the federal system that finds least guidance in the Constitution.
There is no provision in the Constitution that says that Iowa and New Hampshire vote first. The idea of giving any two states a preferred position in the process of choosing a president would surely have struck the Framers as unfair.
Advertisement
But we are stuck with Iowa and New Hampshire voting first because no politician who contemplates ever running for president — i.e., most politicians — wants to arouse the ire of the political and journalistic establishments of Des Moines and Manchester.
Another feature of the nominating system is that it tends to exclude those with experience in foreign and military policy, the two areas in which presidents tend to have the greatest leeway.
Dwight Eisenhower did have such experience. And Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, and George H.W. Bush had been vice presidents with varying degrees of involvement in foreign policy and military command.
But the other six presidents of the last 60 years had to learn by doing. And Ford’s ascent came not through the nomination process but through the 25th Amendment.
A third problem is that the lengthiness of the nomination process — the permanent campaign, as Sidney Blumenthal dubbed it long ago — means that a president, and the nation, may be stuck with an agenda set as much as ten years before he leaves office.
And that’s in the best case, when a candidate presents a series of policy initiatives to caucus-goers, primary voters, and the general electorate, and then tries to follow through in office, as George W. Bush and Barack Obama can claim to have done.
In the worst case, a candidate briefly captures the imagination of impressionable activists and voters with personal glamour and vaporous rhetoric, and then edges ahead of his rivals to clinch a nomination in a good year for his party.
That’s what some people think happened in 1976 with Jimmy Carter, though I think that’s unduly harsh. Certainly it’s a fair characterization of what might well have happened in 2008 if John Edwards had gotten a few more votes and come out ahead of Barack Obama as well as Hillary Clinton in the Iowa caucuses.
None of the politicians currently or possibly running for the 2012 Republican nomination seems to be a shameless charlatan like Edwards. But none except for former Utah governor Jon Huntsman has hands-on foreign-policy experience either, and he obtained his as Barack Obama’s ambassador to China.
The potential candidate who sparks the strongest emotions is Sarah Palin. But her non-spectacular showings in polls suggest that many Republicans, while agreeing that she has been unfairly treated by the press, believe she cannot win. The fates of Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell may have been instructive here.
The candidate whom some pundits call the front-runner, Mitt Romney, is hobbled by the fact that the agenda he put together in 2005–06 for his 2008 candidacy contains elements that are undercut by his previous record (on abortion, for example) or are out of line with Republican voters’ current thinking (Romneycare).
Romney and Mike Huckabee, good-humoredly fluent and seemingly happy as a Fox News host, both lost the 2008 nomination to a candidate whose strategy was to wait for all the other candidates’ strategies to fail. Not a good augury for 2012.
Others carry baggage from the past. Newt Gingrich is sidling up to a candidacy with, as always, a raft of new ideas — many of them good — and some brilliantly penetrating insights, but not much discipline. Rick Santorum, having lost his Senate seat by a 59 percent to 41 percent margin in 2006, is campaigning on the conviction that cultural conservatism will be as important to Republican voters in this cycle as it was from 1988 to 2000.
Tim Pawlenty, Haley Barbour, and Mitch Daniels approach running with records as two-term governors and with the chance to propose fresh agendas. But for the moment they’re overshadowed as congressional Republicans try to seize the initiative on major policy.
It is easy to see at least one reason why each of these potential candidates must lose. But our unsatisfactory nomination process, for all its faults, is a zero-sum game in which one player must win.
With the disadvantages of our primary system, it is still preferable to the British system. There, the parties nominate the candidates; and the public can choose only between those who are nominated. During this last election the conservatives were able to replace in many cases the Ruling Class Republicans with Tea Party candidates.
For the life of me, I still can't figure out why primary selection importance is given to the two giants of polictical input: Iowa and New Hampshire. How did this get started and how can it be endedd?
@PATea: Agree 100% on McCain, not just because he was a squish, but if Game Change is to be believed, he was chronically indisciplined in his approach. He came at everything through instinct. That might be a good approach for a fighter pilot, but it's exactly the wrong approach for a President.
I understand it's practically impossible to do anything about Iowa and New Hampshire. I don't like it, but OK, forget it.
2 issues I think are important.
1. No open primaries. By what logic a republican candidate needs to be chosen by Dems or independents? An invitation for mischief for sure.
2. A line up of the states - who votes in what order. I don't think my vote mattered in the Presidential primaries ever. Everything was already decided, and it was only symbolic. The most logical, in order to keep the competition relevant as long as possible, is to have smaller states (or more precisely states with smaller number of registered republicans) to vote before the states with more republicans - let's say in 5 waves. With debates in-between.
I think the biggest problems with our primary system are: (1) the campaign finance rules are too restrictive and complicated, and (2) the primary system is that it is too front loaded.
Candidates should be allowed to take unlimited money from any U.S. citizen as long as it is fully disclosed on an internet website listing donors within a few days after the donor's check clears. The American people can decide for themselves if there is inappropriate influence from campaign contributors and we don't need the FEC enforcing a Byzantine system of campaign finance laws.
Too many states are trying to be among the first states to have a primary, and the winner takes all rules of the GOP primaries encourage a quick decision before the candidates have had a full airing. I think a presidential primary season should last from February through June like the Democrats did in 2008. This is the only way that the people will ever be able to know about a presidential candidate who is not a sitting president.
"For the life of me, I still can't figure out why primary selection importance is given to the two giants of polictical input: Iowa and New Hampshire"
The system just evolved that way starting during the Progressive Era where do-gooders wanted to take the power away of selecting delegates to the nominating conventions away from party bosses. NH just happened to choose an earlier date.
I agree completely! That Iowa and New Hampshire continue to enjoy such disproportionate influence in the selection of the candidate is ludicrous. As evidence I need only give you McCain and Dole (or Wishy and Washy, as they're seldom known), though many might include W in that group.
Personally, while not a fan of Bush's fiscal profligacy and his unwillingness to take the cap off his veto pen, I do recognize that he did some great things as well - but that's a separate issue.
If one or two states are going to so heavily influence the selection of the Republican candidate, shouldn't they at least be decent sized states with significant EC vote totals, and states which tend to vote Republican more often, such as TX or VA?
I realize that both parties' candidates are selected mostly by IA and NH, but the idea of allowing two states which tend to vote Democratic (more often than not) in national and local elections to be the states that so heavily influence the selection of the Republican candidate is deeply flawed.
On the bright side, I don't believe they would give us Sarah Palin. I admire her in many ways, but as Presidential Candidate? No thanks!
Why is any state primary important? If I'm a voter in a state other than Iowa and Iowa selects Candidate X, why should I care, other than knowing that Candidate X may have a leg up in Iowa and states like it?
Because voters are ignorant and vote on the basis of buzz and name recognition, the primary system stinks? I say it's because voters stink. This article is evidence of that fact.
Excellent analysis sir; and the GOP primary process is indeed flawed. However, if the state Republican parties would cooperate, the process is rather easily fixed. Others on this post have come up with some excellent ideas (for example, no crossover primaries); I would add one more proposal. Get rid of winner-take-all primaries, except for the smallest states. This change, alone, would extend the season, expose charlatans (like Edwards),and season our eventual nominee.
I know that 'experts' worry that the various GOP candidates would fatally weaken each other politically, but not if the candidates act their age, show respect to their opponents, and campaign on issues. I recall that up through 1952, the nomination contest extended right up until the conventions, and that was exciting and fun.
BTW, I think a long primary season would actually benefit Sarah Palin, for she does show respect and loyalty to other conservatives.
No I don't see anything wrong with our primary process. Iowa and New Hampshire do not have disportionate effect. Look if the candidates are competitive they can run long past the openning. They need money and organization.
Our process does not make it difficult for people with military or foreign policy experience to run. They have just not thrown their hat in the ring lately. Military Officers used to run all the time.
John McCain just ran, Bob Dole ran George HW Bush ran. If they don't throw their hat in the ring, they can't win. Sometimes they run like Wesley Clark and people don't want them.
Colin Powell could have run, so could Tommy Franks, or Condi Rice. Our process does not stop them. They just don't seem to want to be president. The job involves so much more then knowledge of foreign policy and the military. They may not be interested in the other aspects of the job.
I am a naturalized American (of European origin) and I am very much impressed by the American primary system. It might not be ideal but it certainly beats the hell out of European style insider selection. I don't like that Iowa and New Hampshire are so important, but I still don't want anything to be changed. The perfect should not be enemy of the good.
The press has fairly well glommed on to the Iowa caucus (not a primary) and the NH primary. And as long as the press is interested those two events will matter. Each state can select party deligates any which way and that's a good thing. I favor the old system that had deligates selected in mostly secret negotiations - and the candidates selected at the conventions. Seems more logical to me than the primary system particularly if you are respecting the fact that this is a republic. A national primary would be a disaster. Might as well give up the EC if you do that.
The US is one of the last Western democracies to be given an actual choice (not an echo) between two main parties with substantially different ideologies and programs. Were it not for primaries, the GOP would be a Rockefellerian centre-left party, like its European counterparts. It's fine to criticize the process, but be thankful for having this primary system in the first place.
"a candidate briefly captures the imagination of impressionable activists and voters with personal glamour and vaporous rhetoric, and then edges ahead of his rivals to clinch a nomination in a good year for his party." -- isn't that exactly how Barack Obama became president?
MarkW,
I agree with you.
Smithers-Jones take your opinions elsewhere where they might be more congenial to your thoughts.
Notice how most people say I respect her, I admire her, I like her, but...
Palin has as much a right as anyone to run if she chooses.
Like Cain and Bolton, she will make debates less dull than they'd be without these candidates.
If we could stop crossover primaries, that would be a big first step. November showed there are a lot more tea party and Club for Growth activists than ever before. I think this time the primaries will choose a better candidate.
The trouble is that candidate must beat Obama.
