Assorted Afflatuses

Iowans have more power than they ought to. Their caucus — the first in the nation — has so much influence on the race to the White House that any politician even contemplating a stab at the presidency has no choice but to back ludicrous policies, simply because they appeal to Iowans. More troubling still, the politicians who generally consider presidential runs are senior politicians, who also happen to greatly influence the broader policy of their political parties. As a result, the entire legislative branch winds up supporting some truly idiotic ideas because the Iowans like them.

America's policy vis-à-vis ethanol epitomizes this problem. Rather than integrate the American ethanol market with the global ethanol market, the United States has built the Great Trade Wall of Iowa. Essentially, any ethanol coming from any other country has such an enormous tariff imposed upon it by the government that it becomes woefully uncompetitive with other, US produced, ethanol. Naturally, Iowa produces a great deal of corn. The same corn, in fact, used to create corn-based ethanol fuels. Good for Iowans, terrible for the rest of the world.

For, while injecting some cash into the Iowan economy is not necessarily a bad move, a de facto US monopoly on ethanol in the US has disastrous environmental, political, security and economic effects to every person on earth. Brazil, for one, has already worked itself into a tizzy over the fact that they, effectively, cannot sell their sugar-based ethanol products in the US, straining our diplomatic ties with that particular southern neighbor.

In the mean time, other US states have taken notice of this phenomenon and have, accordingly, scheduled their primaries to take place earlier in the year. California, for one, will now hold its primary on 5 February 2008, while New Hampshire — whose state constitution mandates that its primary be first &mash; has moved theirs back to 22 January, just a few weeks into the new year.

The net result is even more attention drawn to the so-called political "horse race" (i.e., who trumped whom in the latest poll) and away from a discussion from actual issues. I cannot remember the last time (or any time) Meet the Press had a panel of medical school professors, say, on the program to discuss which candidates possessed the best healthcare policy. Instead, the Chris Matthews Show features its segment, "Tell Me Something I Don't Know," where the assembled panel of journalists digs up some new piece of dirt on a politician and assesses its impact on their polling.

So, I propose the United States have one day in a presidential election year where every state in the nation simultaneously holds its primary. Preferably, this date would fall somewhere in the middle of the year — say on Saturday — and take place on a Saturday, to encourage people to participate by removing their obligation to take time off from work. I say the date is 5 April 2008, the first Saturday of that month. And, for a little extra zeal, why not give the day a catchy, interesting title to attract younger voters and shrug off that pesky air of stodginess? Say hello to Swashbuckling Saturday, the day America chooses its presidential candidates.

The candidates would likely not actually engage in swordplay (though, admittedly, an épée between Obama and Guilliani would be interesting) or physically hurt one another in any way. They would, however, no longer support the ludicrous policies that benefit a handful of states with influential primaries, in favor of looking more macroscopically at which policies best serve the entire country.

Detractors might argue that this would prompt candidates to visit states with population centers, like New York or Ohio, instead of focusing their attention on smaller states, like Iowa. In all likelihood, such detractors would be correct. But to view that as a something undesired would be foolish. It makes infinitely more sense to have the populations of California and New York — whose combined population weighs in at around 56 million or nearly 20% of America's population — dictate national policy than the much smaller population of Iowa.

Hopefully, by removing Iowa's stranglehold on presidential positions, this country would finally adopt policies on their merits, rather than on their impact to Iowans. Yes, in the short run, Iowans will suffer. But, in the long run, the increased competition will force them to innovate, which has rarely hurt any economy. Swashbuckling Saturday would probably have a small impact on the media, but it would, at least, confines their coverage of the horce race to one, rather than dozens, of different days.