What Does Iowa Mean?

I think every other blog has asked this question, or variations of it. So far the Hacks have been pushing the ‘definitiveness’ of the Iowa result. They are making it seem as much as possible, that Hilary Clinton, for example, is in trouble.

And it goes further for than that. Many agencies are giving the impression that this is practically a result: it’s going to be an Obama/Huckabee race to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. What nonsense.

The American press aren’t doing this of course. It’s the British agencies that I’m referring to. The US press know all-too-well that their reader/view/listenership are too knowledgeable of how caucus-politics work for the wool to be pulled over their eyes. Here in Blighty, we don’t really get what this is or what it means, so we can be lead up a more sensationalist garden path.

What does the result mean? Well, not a lot really. A number of Hacks have already described this as “devastating” to the Guliani campaign. It’s not even remotely. The truth is that Rudi didn’t even spend any time down in Iowa. He has a risky strategy for getting maximum support by missing out less significant states, and instead spending more time on important areas (so he can press more flesh for so-called Super Duper Tuesday, for example). A risky strategy yes, but one that could work. He’s far from worried today, no matter what the Hacks might be saying.

Hilary Clinton is a different beast, but one who also has no need to worry. In 2003, I wrote an article that many disagreed with, bluntly entitled “Forget 2004, 2008 is what matters”, or something like that. Certain Hacks thought my view was utterly wrong. I basically said that Hilary Clinton should not run in 2004. She should wait until 2008 when she has a much better chance.

I predicted that the Democrats would vote for a weak nobody candidate who couldn’t galvanise the party, and George W Bush would retain the presidency with a stronger majority than before. Most who apposed this view felt that the Democrats would usher in a strong Bush-antidote character, and win the 2004 election.

What actually happened is that the Democrats voted for a weak flip-flopping nobody (Whatshisname, the guy who kept telling us he won 3 purple hearts in a war he didn’t agree with, and that vague “I would have got the job done right” speech he made about Iraq), and George W Bush retained the White House. Go figure.

Actually, of most of the front-runners, I personally don’t mind who wins the required amount of Electoral College votes. As I mentioned before (and for reasons that I will go into in a moment), I’d be happy with a Clinton win as I predicted. I think that Obama is centrist enough that he could do well with a strong executive team. On the other side, Fred Thompson would be an acceptable choice for me (kinda like a bland, not too significant version of Ronald Regan; a man who I believe was the greatest President during the last 100 years at least). John McCain is okay by me I guess. I’m not as ecstatic about Huckabee, but I’m quite a strong believer in a separation between the church and state, and I’ve got a feeling he thinks that part of the constitution is overrated.

My personal favourite is Rudy Guliani. There had been some speculation that he’d run in 2012, so I didn’t figure him for this election. However, as a libertarian, I believe he’d lead from the centre, bring some of the divided elements of the US together, make incredible positive progress in the war on terrorism, and bring back that sense of classical liberalism, a supply-side economic boom, greater freedom and greater prosperity than we’ve had for some time. He has a problem though.

His problem is a slightly inverted one to Hilary Clintons. He is considered too liberal (i.e. in the socialist sense of the word, not in the classical or libertarian sense) by lots of the further-right Republicans. Now I think this is nonsense. He views on gun-control for example, are just about right to appeal to the widest audience; Leaving things at a state level of control, and keeping the 2^nd Amendment unimpeded (which seems to be working – all 47 states with right-to-carry laws continue to see an overall fall in gun-crime and contact crime. The worst place that crime and murder continues to flourish in the US is Washington D.C. where guns are pretty much banned to private citizens – a fact that Guliani mentioned himself), and his views on say, abortion, are just right for America. He basically believes that abortions should be allowed but there should be a strong emphasis on adoption, which in New York City led to less abortions and more adoptions.

There’s many more examples, which will probably be on another essay. But basically Rudi Guliani’s big problem is that he’s not right-wing enough for a lot of Republicans, so he has to try as best as he can to pander to them for now, in order to get the nomination. If the Republicans are smart, they’ll vote for him to be their candidate, or increase the chance of loosing the White House to the Democrats many fold.

If Rudi is elected as the Republican candidate, then he’s got a real shot as America at large will favour a centrist libertarian-style candidate.

Hilary Clinton has a different problem. Except it’s actually quite similar.

She has to pander to the left in her party right now, which may put America at large off her. But this was the lady who (rightly in my opinion), outflanked Bush on the right with regards to the Iraq war. She’s the one who said “Yes I support this war, but without a really big surge at the start and a very strong rebuilding plan, we’re heading for trouble.” If only more politicians had said that rather than “I support it”, or “I don’t”.

I think she’s quite centrist at heart, but can’t show that for now. Let’s hope that she manages to get through. If not, I think there’s a good few Democrat candidates who will lead from the centre, with balance and classical liberalism, (Obama the most obvious right now).

For me, whoever is sworn in on the Hill next year, one thing is for sure. Democracy will be the ultimate winner.

So what does Iowa mean? Nothing. Don’t believe the Hacks. All bets are still off. Exciting times are ahead.