Caucusing: A Practice in Realism?

Maybe I'm young and idealistic. A romanticist.



I come from the fine state of Iowa, where we have the privilege of caucusing before any other state has their preliminary party elections. We gain a lot of media attention for this, and it leaves a lot of people wondering why it is such a small (lightly populated) state has the first say.

I think that is a fair question, and I'm of no expertise to fairly explain it, other than to say two things about it:

By guaranteeing that we are first, a state which otherwise would be ignored is placed foremost in the minds of the candidates. With three electoral votes, Iowa isn't worth the time of candidates, unless we set a precedent upon which other states may base their own decision.

Secondly, Iowa is generally known as being a litmus test of candidates. We have an incredible mix of voters here, with far left, far right, and everything in between seeing fairly even representation throughout the state. If a candidate does well here, it means many, if not all, major groups have at least some members who support him. (or this year, her.)


All this to say, I caucused this year-and it was an honor to be a part of the first stage in the selection of a candidate. I was amazed, however, by what I heard there.

"If anyone deserves a Presidency, it's John McCain. I was in the marines, and God knows what that man has been through. But I'm also 69, and I recognize that I would be too old to be president. Besides, McCain would never win. We need to stop throwing away our votes on men like Huckabee and McCain, men who may be nice to see but would never be elected. We have to unite behind an electable candidate, like Giuliani or Romney, or we'll be defeated in November. Stop wasting your votes, people!"

Maybe I'm young and idealistic.

See, I think we need to be dealing with a lot more than electability. We need to go deeper than issues. We should be selecting candidates based on their ideals and worldview- no one can know the issues in the future, but you can know how a candidate thinks, and whether they would react through a worldview pleasing and in accordance to yours.

I think we need to select a candidate who we really agree with, and shamelessly vote for their ideas, not their "electability". Has no one ever realized that we damn candidates or make them based on arbitrary, fear-based decision that someone else is 'electable'?

I cannot help but think that when we stand up for the things we each believe in, and we unabashedly put our ballots where out beliefs are, this country can begin to become great again. When every man has representation based on what he believes, not who was the most likely to be popular, we will have a government that can rule of the people, by the people, for the people.

Maybe I'm young and idealistic.

But maybe not. Maybe the world is jaded.

What about Creationism?

There's been a lot of buzz about Huckabee basing his run on religious "radicalism", and his apparent stubborn insistance on ID simply because Evolutionary theory conflicts with Biblical doctrine.

With the media and political left screaming that he'll indoctrinate our children and make Christianity a government-endorsed religion, this excerpt is one I thought might be nice to put out there for consideration.

Huckabee: 'I Feel Like Seabiscuit' -- 01/04/2008

What about creationism?

ABC's "Good Morning America" grilled Huckabee about his evangelical ties, making Creationism the issue.

ABC's Robin Roberts mentioned a new book from the National Academy of Sciences that says Creationism has no place in the classroom -- given the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution.

"Do you agree with that -- that Creationism should be kept out of our classrooms," Roberts asked. "In ten-and-a-half years as a governor, I never touched it," Huckabee said. "It's not an issue for a president. It wasn't even an issue for me as a governor, and governors do deal with education - but not the curriculum." Huckabee said his focus as governor was on music and arts in education.

"Should creationism be banned from the classroom, yes or no?" Roberts persisted.

"Banned? Well, banning sounds like sort of a censorship," Huckabee said. "I don't think most people agree with censorship. Should we teach it as a doctrine? Of course not. Should we teach that some people believe it, some don't? I think that's academic freedom."

Errare humanum est

I'll admit right away, I tend to procrastinate. Even to the point of being flat-out lazy.

But I've done a little more to damn myself in this forum.
When I started this blog, I thought it would be a great way to air some ideas, and it is. The problem was that I approached it like a lecture series, and that just won't do. I'm neither able to easily continue talking in a direct line, nor will it produce material fast enough to satisfy whatever readers I might happen to acquire.

I'm also reluctant to post. I've had a lot of great ideas, quick thoughts, homilies and notes since the 19th, but most of them have landed in the circular file because my first thought is that I need to finish talking about absolutism first. Bad situation, that.

So here's the deal: I apologize for not promptly ending the absolutism issue. But I will get there soon, I promise. In between major points there will be reviews, ideas, unfinished thoughts. Major additions to a topic will be labeled with the topic and number in the series for fast use of the indices and search features.

My first new post first thing tomorrow: a few thoughts on idealism.