By the time this column is published, the Iowa caucuses will be over and the surviving candidates on their way to New Hampshire for that state’s primary on Tuesday.

No matter the outcome, national pundits and Iowa local reporters and editors will spin the quaintly odd Hawkeye custom as a laudable example of democracy in action.

Average voters have several opportunities to see each candidate in person and to ask them a question. Each candidate’s organization needs to goad supporters in each and every precinct to actually attend their caucus. Once at the caucus, voters have a chance to make last-minute pitches to fence-sitters and undecideds.

The talking heads call this “retail politics,” implying that it gives voters a better array of choices among candidates who are forced to be familiar with and responsive to issues of individual voters.

This story continues below
Advertisement

In theory, not a bad idea. But there are several factors with the current primary system that work to limit both the quantity and quality of good presidential candidates.

First of all, selling a candidate like a retail product requires campaigns to develop a marketing strategy complete with sophisticated advertising. Just as with retail marketing, they aren’t asking you to sign on to their big idea, they’re trying to make you feel special for buying the same trinket everyone else buys.

Multicandidate primaries mean that campaigns don’t have to try

to appeal to every party voter, but rather focus on a niche that can give them a slice of the total big enough

to stay viable.

And even though campaigns often behave like they’re in a competitive market, the political market is not free. Campaign contribution restrictions from the 1970s up to McCain-Feingold have made it increasingly difficult for candidates without personal wealth or the high profile of incumbency to run effective campaigns.

But at least each party’s candidate is chosen by voters and not by power brokers in smoke-filled rooms, right? It’s true that the last major party convention that began with its presidential nomination still in play was in 1976 when incumbent President Gerald Ford fended off upstart Ronald Reagan.

Reagan was able to mount serious challenges at both the 1976 and 1968 conventions by tapping into ideological dissatisfaction among the party’s delegates, what we today call its base. He forced both Richard Nixon and Ford to at least pay attention to more substantive issues. And he set up his own successful run in 1980, which led to one of the most consequential presidencies in American history and a rejuvenated, focused Republican party.

Now neither party, especially the Republicans, seems to have much ideological coherence, and neither party can do anything about it short of hoping for a leader to emerge from the cornfields of Iowa and the craggy New Hampshire cliffs.

If parties had a proper say in the nomination process, we might have gotten a race between Al Gore and Newt Gingrich, which would be far more meaningful, in addition to being endlessly entertaining.

Instead, we have a flock of candidates who are spending an awful lot of time trying to convince us that they are qualified and able to do the job. This late in the game we should be past competence and on to vision.

The New York Times reported this week that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is considering seriously an independent presidential run and would be willing to spend as much as $1 billion.

It’s scary that a smug scold who’s banned smoking and trans fats from private places could run for president, and the sad thing is he just might have a shot in such a weak field.

Aaron Keith Harris writes about politics, the media, pop culture and music and is a regular contributor to National Review Online and Bluegrass Unlimited. He can be reached at aaronkeithharris@gmail.com.