Elitist Journalists Dis Populist Iowa Caucuses As Elitist

Last night on CBS Evening News Jeff Greenfield engaged in a predictable quadrennial ritual observed by east coast journalists: bashing the Iowa caucuses as elitist and unrepresentative. I forget who did it 4 years ago in very similar terms, maybe it was Greenfield then, or Newsweek magazine. The argument goes like this: tiny state, and only a tiny percentage of the state's voters come out. Who decided to give them such power in the political process?

The argument must be rejected on several grounds:

1. The east coast media are themselves an elite who have a great deal of sway over popular choices for the presidency. Who gave them such power? Well it just happened. If you're going to bash the 150,000 Iowa caucusers, why not bash the 150 leading political journalists?

2. Greenfield's argument is a smoke-filled room argument. Well, there will always be smoke-filled rooms in American politics. This one is a lot better than party bosses or union bosses, or media bosses for that matter. Iowa is a truly populist smoke-filled room. It's middle America, literally, and anyone who wants can go, if they live in Iowa. 150,000 Dems is a pretty big smoke-filled room.

3. The Iowa process is completely transparent and charming. It is quirky. Again, if you have the gumption, you get to play your part. And the people who take part are highly informed and willing to dig their cars out of the snow, etc. That's the sort of elitism I like: a democratic elite. I wonder what kind of lazy Walmart-sized referendum Greenfield would replace Iowa with, and how much power the big media would have over such a process?

Comments

[Seth Roberts]

Yep. And such comments are statistically ignorant: What matters far more is the representativeness of a sample -- in this case how closely Iowa resembles the rest of the country. "Tiny"/not tiny -- sample size in other words -- is much less important.

[Chuck]

Greenfield prefers a New Hampshire style process where the Israel first media can prohibit Ron Paul from participating in the Republican Debate because Paul is not deemed to have sufficient support.

How interesting is that in light of today's Des Moines Register Poll which seemingly projects Ron Paul to finish ahead of both Guliani and Thompson in Iowa? Of course Guliani and Thompson are both unrelenting supporters of Israel, same as Hillary, Huckabee, Obama, Romney, Edwards and McCain. What a coincidence!!

Greenfield would probably be happier if the flyover goyim weren't permitted to vote at all. Most likely his ideal electoral process would be for Haaretz's Rosner to survey a few Jews as to which candidate is best for Israel and deem the winner to be elected President.

[Jay]

Interestingly enough, after a long absence without seeing Greenfield on CNN, I read the written comments to which, Chuck, in his post, above, refers, featured on the zine, Slate, and which, Rosner, as luck would have it, is a regular contributor.