Blogs v. Iowa

This article on the possible impact of blogs on choosing our next Presidential nominees demonstrates why the political establishment wants to oppress our freedom of speech.

When a politician counts on a relatively small number of politically active people in Iowa to give him national prominence with support in a caucus, it is easy for that politician to simply spend some time in Iowa getting to know important local activists.  A few trips to Iowa can turn an unknown politician into a national figure.  It's easy.  And it's easy for a politician to control his exposure in this manner.

But when the next Iowa caucus takes place in early 2008, potential candidates will have already been analyzed and scrutinized nationally, thanks to the power of blogs.  This is something they can't control.

What they can't control, they fear.

In the old days, political parties chose their candidates largely through closed-door meetings in smoke-filled back rooms.  Modern primaries changed all that.  But...

A generation ago, most people had very little knowledge about an out-of-state politician until he or she made the news with a strong showing in an important early caucus or primary.  When a candidate emerged from the Iowa caucus with a lot of support, voters across the nation often got their "first look" at that candidate through the prism of buzzwords like "winner" and "front runner."  This meant that a candidate who succeeded in winning over a small group of Iowegians suddenly had an edge.  Consequently, on any given day in Des Moines a year before a Presidential election, you have a better chance of randomly bumping into the next President on the street than you have in the Capitol building when Congress is in session.  Is this really getting the people more involved?  Or did the back room just move from an exclusive club in New England to a diner in Des Moines?

So while the primary process was an improvement in getting the people more involved in choosing candidates, it still fails to really get all the people involved.

Things started to change during the 2004 election cycle.  We saw Howard Dean become a national phenomenon, almost entirely over the internet, without pandering to a small group of activists in Iowa.  Unfortunately for Dean, his national exposure also showed a great number of voters what a kook he really is.  But the important thing is, Dean used new media to spread an anti-war message that really changed the campaign.  He introduced a new variable that his primary opponents couldn't control.  Consequently, the eventual winner of the nomination, John Kerry, had to infamously "flip flop" on the war.  John Kerry lost control of the issues, and soon thereafter lost the Presidential election.

Had it not been for Howard Dean and the internet, we may very well have President Kerry right now.

Now we see blogs spreading information about potential 2008 Presidential candidates long before Iowa will come into play.  Some politicians get it, and are eagerly embracing the new media.  But others are in denial, or worse, are actively fighting against this threat.

When a contender plans a meeting at a diner in Des Moines, he can control who is invited; he can control who asks him questions; he can control the whole show.  And with a win in Iowa, he can use that momentum to win the early primaries.  After winning early primaries, he is essentially assured the nomination.  But when voters in South Carolina, Michigan, and other early-primary states are reading up on a candidate's actions for several years, what happens in Iowa suddenly seems a lot less relevant.  And candidates can't control what people like me type on our keyboards.

What they can't control, they fear.  And I want politicians to fear average people like me.  It keeps them working FOR US instead of for themselves.

Comments

[RandomUser]

Gully, as usual, you have hit the nail on the head. The irony of the situation is that if a candidate is proud of their record, what do they have to fear if it is published? Honestly, if you're proud of it, it's positive publicity for you - even/especially when those with opposing viewpoints are writing about it.

[-keith in mtn. view]

The transparency that blogs create helps ensure that our wannabee Emperors wear real clothes.