America Courts the People’s Voice

The Iowa caucuses can hardly be called a fascinating battle. The candidates are vying for the people’s voice, but there’s also a lot of shrillness involved.

Direct democracy has its admirable sides — and yet it’s often repulsive as well. It seldom manages to achieve its ideals in practice. Too few actually go to the trouble of getting involved. Outsiders with highly engaged and well organized followers get far too much influence. Nonetheless, it more often than not results in a more authentic popular choice than if the party establishment elites had done the choosing. And that’s the way it was with the first of the Republican primaries to nominate an opponent to Barack Obama next November.

The advantages and disadvantages of the system are brought into focus under its lens. The quest for the people’s voice was full of many shrill tones, especially in front of the cameras. The scene in the actual caucus rooms is far different, where citizens openly and in all seriousness debate their responsibility in choosing the right person to help America out of its deep crisis; one who listens and deserves respect. They are torn inwardly. They mistrust all the pretty promises. Their nation suffers in an atmosphere of poisonous political debate.

But something has to give; things can’t continue as they’re going — the economic crisis, unemployment and the debt spiral. It’s true that the 120,000 Iowa caucus goers represent only 5 percent of the electorate, that they’re predominantly white, predominantly elderly and — because only a Republican nominee will be chosen — predominantly conservative. But that’s still a far larger proportion of the electorate than is involved in choosing Germany’s candidates for chancellor. And in the coming U.S. primaries, a larger percentage will participate in voting.

The Iowa results reflect the national mood fairly well. The Republican Party is split three ways. Christian and social conservatives unanimously supported Rick Santorum, almost achieving an upset. Mitt Romney’s narrow win kept him in the position of favorite to win nomination, although there will be other attempts to prevent that because many on the right see him as an opportunist unworthy of trust. He is backed by the business wing, whose highest priority is to make Obama a one-term president. Of the top three finishers in Iowa, he has the best prospects for nomination because he is a pragmatist and appeals more readily to party moderates.

There has always been a revolutionary wing of the Republican Party that uncompromisingly opposes big government and taxes and government involvement in the private sphere. Most Americans want more freedom from government than do most Germans — even if it’s to the detriment of their social well-being. Libertarian Ron Paul is currently better placed to attract those voters than, for example, Michele Bachmann, who was the darling of the tea party movement just a few short months ago.

From the foreign perspective, it’s often very difficult to understand this complex America with its attractive as well as its problematic sides. When this electoral system produced the fascinating battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in 2008, it delighted half the world. Many Germans and Europeans wished that their local politics could be so attractive. With the images and sounds emanating from America in 2012, there’s a growing feeling that America might be a bit loony.

The Republican disunity offers Obama’s supporters some comfort as they increase the chances for his reelection. Whether it is Romney or one of the other contenders, up to now they’ve looked weak and their chances slim — unless they can get it together.