It is quite astonishing to see with what deadpan and neutral a tone our press and television report the open corruption—and the flagrantly anti-democratic character—of the Iowa caucuses. It's not enough that we have to read of inducements openly offered to potential supporters—I almost said "voters"—even if these mini-bribes only take the form of "platters of sandwiches" and "novelty items" (I am quoting from Sunday's New York Times). It's also that campaign aides are showing up at Iowan homes "with DVD's that [explain] how the caucuses work." Nobody needs a DVD to understand one-person-one-vote, a level playing field, and a secret ballot. The DVD and the other gifts and goodies (Sen. Barack Obama is promising free baby-sitting on Thursday) are required precisely because none of those conditions applies in Iowa. In a genuine democratic process, these Tammany tactics would long ago have been declared illegal. But this is not a democratic process, and besides, as my old friend Michael Kinsley used to say about Washington, the scandal is never about what's illegal. It's about what's legal.
I'd like to note this bit of irony. Democrats who argue that voter identification is too great a burden to the democratic process, eagerly embrace the elitism of the Iowa Caucuses.
But of course, there are some people whom the Democrats would prefer did not have a vote.
Jason Huffman has lived in Iowa his whole life. Lately he has been watching presidential debates on the Internet and discussing what he sees with friends and relatives. But when fellow Iowans choose their presidential nominees Thursday night, he will not be able to vote, because he is serving with the Iowa National Guard in western Afghanistan.
No comments:
Post a Comment