Why Iowa IS Relevant

Are the Iowa caucuses “relevant?”

Yes. Perhaps now more than ever.

In the interminable weeks and marathon of debates leading up to tomorrow’s Iowa caucuses, pundits and media gurus have been raising the question as to whether the Iowa caucuses will be relevant “if they turn out wrong.” There is no doubt that Iowa Republicans are more likely to reflect agricultural interests and Evangelical Christian fervor than the rest of the nation; but over the last 30 years, the Republican Iowa caucuses have been an accurate snapshot of political temperament in America.

First, it has accurately reflected the mood of the national Republican Party.

In 1980, George H. W. Bush (32%) and Ronald Reagan (30%) virtually tied; libertarian-oriented Congressman Phil Crane took an additional 7% of the vote. The caucuses almost pre-ordained a Reagan-Bush ticket, and foreshadowed a growing conservative-libertarian bloc within the GOP.

In 1988 (Reagan was unopposed for his second term in 1984), the winner was Bob Dole(37%); televangelist Pat Robertson took second with 24%, and George H. W. Bush limped in at third place with 19%. Once again, Iowa taught an important lesson: while George H.W. Bush went on to win the nomination and the election against Democrat Mike Dukakis (in a record-low turnout year), Iowa signaled that Bush was headed for trouble, and would be limited to a one-term Presidency. At the same time, Robertson’s second place finish indicated the growing power of the religious right within the GOP.

In 1996, the winner was Bob Dole with 26%. He went on to win the Republican nomination that year.

In 2000, George W. Bush won with 41%. He went on to win the Republican nomination that year.

In 2008, Mike Huckabee won with 34% of the vote. This win reflected the continuing strength of social conservatives and the religious right in the GOP. The eventual winner of the nomination that year – John McCain – drew only 13% of the vote. His lackluster performance in Iowa found its fullest expression in the general election, when he was defeated by Barack Obama, losing formerly “safe” GOP states like North Carolina, Indiana, and Virginia. Interestingly, Mitt Romney took second place in Iowa that year (25%), foreshadowing his own strength this year.

Second, as a “swing state,’ it has been a bellwether in the national election.

Iowa has voted for the winning candidate in the general election in four out of five of the last Presidential elections, and 7 out of the last 10 Presidential elections. In other words, in recent years, it has become even more predictive of the national outcome. One can point to its racial makeup or economic base as 'unrepresentative,' but the objective facts are that Iowans laregly have their finger on the pulse of elections, rather than simply being a "red state" or a "blue state."

But lastly, the current ‘winnowing process’ that has resulted in a virtual three-way race between Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and a late-surging Rick Santorum, is an accurate reflection of the current makeup – and divisions – within the Republican Party.

On Jan 23, 2011 – just about a year ago – we published an analysis
of the tripartheid nature of the Republican Party as reflected in elections for leadership with the state of New Hampshire Republican Party. We wrote,

In the wake of yesterday's election of Jack Kimball over Juliana Bergeron as New Hampshire State Republican Chair, many news articles have attempted to present this as a battle between "two sides." And in America, we tend to simply battles into just two sides: Republicans vs. Democrats, Packers vs. Bears, Yankees vs. Red Sox, Toby Keith vs. The Dixie Chicks. But the reality behind the scenes is that the state GOP can be divided into at least three different factions, and the direction the party - and the State - will take is a function of how those coalitions come together - or fall apart - on individual issues.

In brief, the three main factions are The Establishment Yankees, The Theocrats, and the Libertarians.

Nowhere have three factions become as starkly clear as in Iowa in the last week.

Mitt Romney is the clear establishment favorite: The son of former Michigan Governor George W. Romney, he holds a joint Juris Doctor/Master of Business Administration degree from Harvard. He was the co-founder and head of Bain Capital, a highly profitable private equity investment firm. With the possible exception of Jon Huntsman, Romney represents the Republican Establishment Blue-Blood tradition.

Ron Paul, a twelve-term Congressman from Texas, is perhaps the single most recognizable voice in the libertarian wing of the GOP. Consistently voicing libertarian positions, Paul often votes against his Republican colleagues on issues involving civil liberties, militarism, and spending. In 1988, he ran for President on the Libertarian Party ticket; He was one of only 66 Congressmen (out of 435) to oppose the original Patriot Act, and one of 26 Republicans to oppose its extension this past year. A veteran, he alone among the Republicans has opposed sanctions on Iran and has called for significant slashing of America’s international military budget.

Rick Santorum represents the clearest and most extreme personification of theocracy in the United States. A strident evangelical Christian, Santorum is actively seeking to galvanize Iowa’s Pat Roberston voters as he openly campaigns on behalf of a “Christian America,” vowing this past week to invalidate all same-sex marriage that have already taken place, and winning endorsements from Bob Vander Plaats, Chief Executive of the Family Leader, and Chuck Hurley, President of the Iowa Family Policy Centre. In an overture to the Second-Coming crowd, he vowed a direct military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

In the last week, the media have used the words “irrelevant,” “overhyped,” and “unrepresentative” in describing Iowa and it’s voters. They have used all sorts of facts and figures about race and religion to try and prove their point. They also question what an unexpected (or “undesirable”) outcome could mean.

But in spite of their nay-saying, the three front-runners - Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum – are an entirely accurate representation of the elements of the current schizoid Republican Party, and the results of the Iowa caucuses for the last thirty years have been highly predictive of the American political mood.

Iowa *is* relevant.


.

Mitt Romney: Bind US Spending to Foreign Corporate Investment

Mitt Romney, who prides himself on being the candidate with ‘business’ experience, has proposed some fiscal measures which evidence a decided lack of serious economic analysis.

In advertisements that have been running non-stop here in New Hampshire, Romney presents his three-point plan to reign in federal spending. In the ads, he proposes,

“…capping federal spending as a percentage of GDP at 20% or less…”

There are any number of issues Mitt is going to have to explain with this “plan.” He can start with any of these:

1) GDP, or Gross Domestic Product, is the value of all the goods and services produced within a society. In the United States, current annual GDP is approximately $14 Trillion dollars annually. With federal spending capped at 20% of this number, that would result in an annual federal budget of 2.8 Trillion dollars. The Fiscal Year 2010 budget is 3.45 Trillion, so Romney’s plan would require cutting spending by 650 Billion dollars.

To provide a sense of this proposal, the entire amount of Social Security payments made to retirees annually is 701 Billion. The total amount of “Discretionary Spending” (spending that excludes social security, medicare, interest, defense, and other ‘mandatory’ payments) is 660 Billion. If Mitt is not proposing cutting off social security or eliminating the military, it would appear that he is proposing an elimination of all discretionary spending whatsoever: Bridge Rehabilitation on Interstates, Superfund Cleanups of Toxic Waste sites, Food & Drug Administration approvals of cutting-edge pharmaceuticals, Coast Guard operations, Community Block Grants for Economic Development, Jobs Trainings Initiatives, and hundreds of other federally-designated programs. EVERYTHING.

2) By basing spending on GDP, his proposal means that the budget will always be out-of-synch with reality. The Budget for the future fiscal year is voted on during the current year, and it will be based on figures from the past year's GDP (which would still be in revision), resulting a two year ‘mis-match’ of GDP and spending authorizations.

3) By capping spending to a percent of GDP, Romney opens up the country to sudden, unexpected budget shocks since GDP is calculated after each quarter, but then revised in subsequent quarters.

For instance, on November 22 of this year, economists in Washington revised the third-quarter (July-August-September) GDP downward to a growth of 2% from their previous report of 2.5%. While a change in .5% may not sound like much, a .5% change in a 14 Trillion dollar GDP is a difference of 70 Billion Dollars in GDP. Under Romney’s plan, such a revision would result in the sudden elimination of 14 Billion in spending from the Federal Budget. For comparison purposes, that is greater than the entire annual budgets of the Departments of the Treasury, Commerce, Interior, and Environmental Protection.

4) Lastly, and perhaps most important, is the fact that Romney’s plan would make American Government expenditures dependent on the activities of foreign companies operating in the United States.

The GDP figure is obtained by adding up the value of all goods and services created in the US. It does not matter whether the goods produced are made by American or foreign companies, as long as they create the products on US soil. Currently, 3.2 Trillion dollars of our 14 Trillion GDP is derived from foreign companies doing business on US soil.

In other words, 22% of our total GDP comes from these firms. It also means, that under Romney’s plan, 22% of the American Government’s spending would depend on continuing product development by companies from foreign nations located in the US. That amounts to 760 Billion dollars of American spending being dependent on the level of foreign investment.

Again, for comparison purposes, that amount is the equivalent of our entire Defense Budget.

A curious proposal, coming from the candidate who has so willingly rattled sabers with Iran.


.

Masks, GLBT rights, & GOP Presidential Politics

This month saw the 25th Year Anniversary performance in London of the Phantom of the Opera - the highest-grossing entertainment event of all time, the most financially successful theatrical show in history, and the longest running show on Broadway. Around the world, the show is easily identified - even by those who have never seen it - by the trademark Phantom’s Mask

Masks have always intrigued me. Fascinated, terrified, and intrigued me.

As a child, clowns scared me. They still do. There is something evil and scary about clown make-up to me; it is a very obvious statement that what you “see” before you is not what is “really” underneath. Something is being prettified, or changed, or hidden; something awful is being presented as if it’s funny and joyful. I don’t like them.

I was drawn into the 1998 film, “The Man in the Iron Mask,” which itself was based on the Alexandre Dumas novel of an actual man imprisoned in the Bastille. In the movie, it is proposed that the prisoner was the twin brother of King Louis XIV - but he was kept hidden from view behind locked prison doors, his face encased in a locked iron mask so no one would recognize him as an heir to the throne. Had his true self been revealed, it would upset the established social and political order, and so the King insisted that no one be permitted to see him.

As a gay man living a closeted existence for several decades, I could identify with that.

Just as I can identify with the Phantom.

Of course, in the Phantom’s case, no one forces him to wear his mask. Rather, it is his fear of rejection, and the public's revulsion at his "differentness," his disfigured face, that causes him to hide. He voluntarily wears the mask to obscure his true identity, and lives in the shadows of the Opera House’s basement. There he can continue his life's musical work without fear of rejection. I can identify with the Phantom even more than with the Man in the Iron Mask.

I recall a heated discussion I had six years ago about the Phantom. I was admittedly sympathetic to him, understanding his perspective. The woman with whom I was speaking was outraged. “He is a monster! He’s a liar! He manipulates and uses people! How can you defend him?!” I suspected that she was seeing this from her very personal perspective, just as I was seeing from mine.

Which brings me to the main point of this blog post: the scrambling by Republican presidential candidates to shove masks back on our faces.

Here in New Hampshire, we go through the every-four-year sideshow of Presidential-wannabes traipsing through the state seeking a First-in-The-Nation Primary win. And as Primary day gets closer, each candidate tries to outflank the next in securing votes. This week, they tried to outdo each other on the issue of Marriage [In]Equality.

In August, Rick Perry had signed a pledge to support a Constitutional Amendment banning Marriage Equality nation-wide. This past Friday, at a dinner hosted by the extreme right-wing “Cornerstone Action,” Perry shored up his credentials, adding,

"As conservatives…We believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage, and I applaud those legislators in New Hampshire who are working to defend marriage as an institution between one man and one woman, realizing that children need to be raised in a loving home by a mother and a father."

Perry was referring to the current effort by the NH House to repeal the 2009 NH Marriage Equality bill.

Mitt Romney, despite pledging his personal support as an advocate of GLBT rights to the Log Cabin Republicans in 1994, turned around and signed the pledge calling for a federal amendment defining marriage as one-man and one-woman. Rick Santorum has stated that there is “no right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution” (50 years of Court decisions say otherwise), and called gay rights to the equivalent of another 9-11 terrorist attack in the Morning Call. This actually sounds like a remix of Michelle Bachmann’s letter in which she declared that legislators who oppose a federal Marriage Amendment to be like “soldiers who missed the Pearl Harbor warning signs.”

Speaking (or should I say ”pandering?”) to the Christian Broadcasting Network, Last week possible front-runner Herman Cain said,

“I think marriage should be protected at the federal level also…I used to believe that it could be just handled by the states but there’s a movement going on to basically take the teeth out of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and that could cause an unraveling, so we do need some protection at the federal level because of that and so yes I would support legislation that would say that it’s between a man and a woman.”

Make no mistake: Theocratic political action groups such as the National Organization for Marriage and Cornerstone Action are scrambling to find ways to lock iron masks on gay men and women, lest the world see us for who we are: neighbors, teachers, firefighters, sons, daughters, architects, sports figures, secretaries, construction workers, accountants, warehousemen, drivers, and nurses.

If we can’t be seen, or acknoweldged, or recognized, they hope, we will be forgotten, as if locked in the Bastille.

As they attempt to re-introduce a climate of fear and loathing, they work on our psyche much as the crowds worked on the Phantom’s psyche: by convincing him that he was ugly, that he was different, that he would be attacked by ‘normal’ people...and just as he chose to live his life behind a mask so no one could see, so, still, do many gay and lesbian citizens.

After all, NH Rep. Ralph Boehm, the vice chairman of the House Education Committee, tried to gut the states new anti-bullying law, saying that

"Students need to be prepared for life...bullying is part of it.”

You see? We should hide...because otherwise we will be attacked. It's just "part of life."

But living behind a mask has repercussions worse than these theocrats understand.

In a 2008 poll of 260 openly gay men in New England, fully one half stated they used to me married to a woman…which, of course, ended in divorce.

They did not ‘change’ their orientation half-way through their lives. Rather, they tried to live behind a mask, where no one could see their ‘real face,’ or their ‘differences,’ and hope it would work.

It doesn’t.

And for those who claim to be on the side of “marriage,” they do themselves – and society – no favor by forcing men to live in ways they can’t.

Harvey Milk pleaded with us to drop the masks:

“…Gay brothers and sisters,... You must come out. Come out... to your parents... I know that it is hard and will hurt them but think about how they will hurt you in the voting booth! Come out to your relatives... come out to your friends... if indeed they are your friends. Come out to your neighbors... to your fellow workers... to the people who work where you eat and shop... come out only to the people you know, and who know you… But once and for all, break down the myths, destroy the lies and distortions. For your sake. For their sake. For the sake of the youngsters who are becoming scared by the votes from Dade to Eugene…”

No More Closets…No More Bastille Prison Doors…No More Iron Masks…No More Phantoms.

And no more two-faced, pandering, ignorant hateful Republicans as President, thank you.

Mitt Romney: Like Nailing Jello to a Wall....

Mitt Romney's interview with George Stephanopoulos this morning was a remarkable study of a Teflon Candidate who spoke passionately about having strong convictions about many issues, while leaving the viewer in total confusion. From abortion to the federal role in education, Mitt seemed to be all over the board, each sentence contradicting the one before. But my favorite part of the interview was his internally inconsistent and thoroughly illogical perspectives on gays in the military and gay marriage (which, I guess, could be expected when you're the Mormon Governor of the most Liberal state in the union).

His comments on these issues, with my own comments added, are these:

Concerning Gays in the military, Mitt said:

"Well, "don't ask, don't tell" has worked well. "

"I must admit, I was somewhat uncertain as to whether that would work and I was skeptical as to whether that policy would work. "

"I don't have a policy posture as to allowing gays in the military to serve there openly."

(So, if I have this right, Mitt, you didn't think it would work, but now you think it has worked, and you don't want gays to be 'open')

Mitt continued: "But I can tell you that I'm against discrimination against people who are gay and lesbian."

OK...you don't want Gays in the military to admit to any soul in the military that they are gay. But you are against discrimination. So, it would be OK to admit you are Catholic, Democrat, or of Croatian ethnic heritage; you could admit to being heterosexual and discuss in lurid detail your exploits with those of the opposite sex in the barracks; you could wolf whistle at the strippers in the club and place dollars in their g-strings...as long as it was a dancer of the opposite sex. So tell me again how you are 'against discrimination against people who are gay,' but believe that gays and ONLY gays must be silent about their lives to remain on the job?

And for what its worth Mitt, "Don't Ask Don't Tell" has NOT worked...at all. But we will save that issue for a separate blog entry.

Then, on marriage:

"...I do favor and have always favored traditional marriage and oppose same sex marriage.
..... I've felt marriage is between a man and a woman and not between people of the same gender. "

'....two people can enter into a partnership, whether they're people who love each other or whether they're just friends. They can enter into a contract and have contractual relationships with one another. ... But that doesn't require a sanction by the state and so that's a decision each state would have to make. I wouldn't seek to impose, at the national level, a prohibition on contractual relationships between two people...But my view is, at the national level, we should define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman..."

Whooa! "It's a decision each state would have to make" and "I wouldn't seek to impose, at the national level...," followed by, "At the national level, we should define marriage."

Mitt, old boy, do you see any contradiction there? Appealing to individual contractual rights and states rights on one hand, and supporting a national policy on the other hand? All things to all people, buster? Or Nothing to Anybody?

But here's the real exciting part:

"... And this isn't about adult rights. A lot of people get confused that gay marriage is about treating gay people the same as treating heterosexual people, and that's not the issue involved here. This is about the development and nurturing of children. Marriage is primarily an institution to help develop children and children's development, I believe, is greatly enhanced by access to a mom and a dad. I think every child deserves a mom and a dad, and that's why I'm so consistent and vehement in my view that we should have a federal amendment which defines marriage in that way..." My view is that the right model for the nation and the right standard for the nation is marriage is between a man and a woman and a child deserves a mom and a dad.."

Well, Mitt, you have pretty clearly stated that marital rights are about 'the development and nurturing of children." So if that's what marital rights are all about, I have some questions for you:

Does that mean you would revoke marital rights for heterosexual couples who are unable, or choose not, to raise children?

Would you revoke marital rights for couples once their children are grown and out of the house?

Would you make adoption by single parents illegal?

If marriage rights and benefits are predicated on the notion of raising children, then by your own standards childless couples should not have these rights. If you favor the adoption of a child by a single woman, how could you logically oppose the adoption of that child by a single woman and her partner? Further, under your own standard, if a state permits gay couples to adopt...wouldn't they have a stronger claim to marital benefits than a heterosexual couple with no children?

At some point, Mitt, you will need to stop sticking your wet finger in the wind while whispering contradictory sweet nothings into three different ears at once. And when you do, then we'll examine your stands on the issues. Until then, we'll give you some time to think about the logical conclusions of some of your 'positions.'