EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
Today (January 3, 2012) is an important day in American politics. The small Midwestern agricultural state of Iowa is holding the primary election for delegates to the Republican National Convention. This year, the vote is especially important because it will determine who will challenge Barack Obama in the upcoming race for the White House. Each state sends its own delegates to the convention, but if a candidate wins the Iowa caucus, he (or she) gets a huge advantage in the race in the form of fresh funding and increased media interest.
The battle for Iowans' attention is fierce. Vast resources are being poured into advertising and voter mobilization, volunteers are calling the homes of so-called super voters (people who have voted in at least two of the previous primaries) around the clock, candidates are touring small towns and holding hundreds of meetings in an attempt to convince voters. Campaign teams are weaving elaborate strategies for how to combine their possible Iowa caucuses with the next (even more important) primary in New Hampshire.
Locals are taking full advantage of the situation. Millions of dollars are pouring into the state in the form of public events, fairs, entourages of supporters and armies of journalists. Dozens of early voting and recounts are taking place, shifting the order of candidates and adding to the tense atmosphere. Politics is being done American-style - among the people, in schools and town halls, face to face.
The American electoral process has enough critics, so I will praise it. This will be done by comparing it with the Bulgarian reality, which differs from that in the States in one main thing – the level of representativeness. Namely: to what extent each voter has an impact on the choice of the individuals who govern it.
Our MPs on paper belong to a certain electoral district, but to what extent do the people from that district have a say in the election when they were simply placed on a party list? How many of the Bulgarian MPs maintain offices in Sofia or in the countryside, where they meet with their voters and receive letters from them? Do they really communicate with the residents of their districts, and do not use the money for gasoline for walks? I personally have not seen any MPs from my district. They have not tried to talk to me or the people I know. The party clubs are closed and empty. And why should they be open, why should they look for me? We are not in Iowa…
Regardless of what elected office American politicians aspire to, they cannot avoid close encounters with the electorate. If we look at congressmen, who are comparable to our deputies, we will notice how closely they follow what is happening in their constituency, how much work they do in the field, how interested they are in the mood of the population. A congressman is to a much greater extent an emanation of the political views of the population that elected him than a deputy.
Maybe Americans have a better political class, and we have drawn the short straw. No! The American presidential candidate (senator, governor, congressman) must meet with voters. If he doesn't, they simply won't notice him. Developed societies make their politicians sweat for their elected office and then don't let them rest until they hold it. That's where the famous phrase comes from - "Call your congressman." How many times have we thought about calling our representative?
The reason we are politically further behind than an American province lies within ourselves. We have made it easy for the ruling class in Bulgaria, we have allowed it to win elections with amateur performances and cheap populism.
We don't vote - that makes a solid electorate and a bought vote sufficient for most parties. We don't care - that makes offering shallow promises and raising ridiculous messiahs winning strategies. We don't demand - that allows incompetent "button-pushers" to slumber in parliament for four years.
We deserve the system that exists in Bulgaria, because we have earned it. A year ago, they also abolished the direct election of district mayors. The silence was deafening. We did not defend our right to say who should manage our neighborhoods, we did not even murmur. As long as we are like this, we cannot step on the little toe of Iowa, where the president of the world's only superpower sits in front of the residents of every small town and answers questions like a schoolgirl.
About the Republican Party candidates
I decided to include a little profile of the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination. There have been a few temporary leaders in the polls in recent months, but for one reason or another, many of them have dropped out of the race. The three frontrunners of late are:
Мит Ромни ( Mitt Romney)
The former Massachusetts governor is the most likely winner in Iowa. He is considered the “most electable” of the candidates because he is closer to the center than all the others. His disadvantage is that on many of the issues important to right-wing Republicans (gay rights, abortion, etc.) he had a fairly liberal position, which he has abandoned. The concern for him is that a sharp turn to the left would be made once he gets the Republican nomination. His main problem is that he has not yet been able to win the support of evangelicals and other conservative religious groups.
The Libertarian candidate, with growing support from youth and volunteer organizations, has brought many headaches to the status quo in the Republican Party. They, as well as the media, have tried to ignore him, but his message has been gaining enormous strength since the last presidential campaign, where he participated again (as did Romney). Paul will hardly be able to win the presidency with his messages, which are so far from those of other politicians. A big problem for him is also the involvement of his name in scandalous publications with racist content. The predictions are for Paul to come in second place in Iowa.
The last hope for conservatives in Iowa is a former senator from Pennsylvania. His surge in support in recent days, after weeks at the bottom of the polls, is partly due to a strategic choice to hold many meetings with workers in the state. Religious voters are frantically looking for someone who can be a counterpoint to the dominant, and in their opinion too liberal, Romney. Their last choice is precisely Santorum, with expectations that he will take third place.
The comparison with Bulgaria is deadly true.