Barely had the new Congress gotten down to business when the exploratory committees began popping up to announce the pseudo-candidacies of many of the individuals who everyone expected to run since 2004. But the process has become so front-loaded that some have questioned whether anyone but an already established candidate can upset the field. Whatever one's feelings about the disproportionately influential Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary may be, it is important to acknowledge they did do one important thing: maintain the basic dynamic of the nominating process as it has been since the beginnings of the Jacksonian era. Sometimes a nationally established figure captured the nomination, but often "dark horse" candidates would emerge to steal the candidacy from its heir apparent. But this unpredictability, first created by the convention system, then by early primaries in small states, may be coming to an end. What would it mean if this election actually went exactly as the pundits predict it will? The virtues of the American system is that it gives unknown candidates who may in fact be far more capable of governing than the front-runners a window to overcome their disadvantage in fundraising and publicity. The campaign is very much a trial-by-fire, and rightfully so. Paradoxically, by taking the fate of the free world out of the hands of a few partisans in two small rural states, the Union may be worse-off for it. Sure, it may be undemocratic, but under the circumstances, I think we may soon view the days when men and women with global stature had to trek trough the cornfields and brave the icy winters of New Hampshire with nostalgia.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
It's On
Barely had the new Congress gotten down to business when the exploratory committees began popping up to announce the pseudo-candidacies of many of the individuals who everyone expected to run since 2004. But the process has become so front-loaded that some have questioned whether anyone but an already established candidate can upset the field. Whatever one's feelings about the disproportionately influential Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary may be, it is important to acknowledge they did do one important thing: maintain the basic dynamic of the nominating process as it has been since the beginnings of the Jacksonian era. Sometimes a nationally established figure captured the nomination, but often "dark horse" candidates would emerge to steal the candidacy from its heir apparent. But this unpredictability, first created by the convention system, then by early primaries in small states, may be coming to an end. What would it mean if this election actually went exactly as the pundits predict it will? The virtues of the American system is that it gives unknown candidates who may in fact be far more capable of governing than the front-runners a window to overcome their disadvantage in fundraising and publicity. The campaign is very much a trial-by-fire, and rightfully so. Paradoxically, by taking the fate of the free world out of the hands of a few partisans in two small rural states, the Union may be worse-off for it. Sure, it may be undemocratic, but under the circumstances, I think we may soon view the days when men and women with global stature had to trek trough the cornfields and brave the icy winters of New Hampshire with nostalgia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
