Pensees: Random Thoughts on the Iowa Caucuses

Random Thoughts on the Iowa Caucuses

Last night’s Iowa Caucuses were fascinating to me. Not because there were any surprises. I was not surprised by one thing except for Edwards’ success. I knew Huckabee would win Iowa and that Obama would defeat Clinton. I was fascinated because so many people were surprised.

Fundamentalist and evangelicals leaders can learn from the Iowa Caucuses. The establishment simply did not see it coming. They have developed an establishment and clearly do not believe that there is any route to power except by the lanes their big behinds are blocking as they sluggishly push forward with the establishment machinery. The lesson is that today’s culture finds other lanes (i.e.anti-establishment conviction) to be very appealing.

I said as much in a previous post. Romney looks too rich, too white, too slick, too plastic, and too familiar. He is the poster-boy of the rich Republican establishment. He seems to be part of a dynasty that is not the Romney dynasty, but the Republican Dynasty. Postmoderns don’t want his type. Hillary has the same problem. She is the heir-apparent of the Democratic/Clintonian Dynasty. It was not Hillary that was rejected. It was the dynasty that was rejected. The anti-establishment conviction of Edwards and Obama rings like leadership to young postmodern Democrats. And what postmoderns want in their leadership is conviction – any conviction – as long as it is different than the conviction of the establishment. It’s almost humorous. The rebels of the sixties are being rejected by their children. Those who rebelled against the establishment in the 1960s have themselves become a massive machinery of entrenched establismentarianism.

________________________________

I personally do not share the Hillary paranoia that grips most conservatives, particularly evangelicals. Statements such as “it’s all about beating Hillary” are almost laughable to me. Hannity’s “Stop the Hillary Express” passion is so one-dimensional it borders on the ridiculous. But one-dimensional emotional decision-making defines the American people. One-dimensional perspectives miss the larger picture. Always.

Hillary may not be the worst thing for us. If Hillary were to become president of the United States of America we would see another four to eight years of the same old, same old. If Obama becomes President something new will happen. I’m not sure that I would want to exchange the currently-bad for whatever new Obama has to offer. But if I were a careless youth, my instinct would tell me that Hillary is the same and new - whatever it is – would be interesting! Therefore, I think it is a bit melodramatic to panic so much over Hillary.

Yet, I must admit that a President Hillary will likely want to get her pound of flesh sometime and her presidency could be marked by unadulterated (interesting choice of words) revenge. However, if she managed to rise above her nature, she might be a tired generic leader, competently mediocre. Generic and competently mediocre might be a blessing compared to a flamboyant and passionate activist who could rightly interpret his election as a mandate for a change of everything! Obama is smooth and nice. He could be the best thing true liberals have ever had, particularly if they want the young. However, Hillary’s crusty and snappy remarks last night sounded like an embattled flower child with a modern perspective, particularly her comment concerning potential votes for her from Republicans “who have seen the light.” She shoved the establishment’s obsession in everybody’s face. Obama, on the other hand, seemed as if he hardly knew there were such things as Democrats and Republicans. The Postmodern trumped the Flower Child.

Modern flower children are ho-hum. Obama will get the youth.

___________________________________________

Obama has the benefit of no experience. He hasn’t served long enough to have a history of waffling. Unlike Hillary (or Romney on the Republican side), he has the luxury of having never flip-flopped. He appears to have conviction. And conviction sells these days, ironically, but it has to be packaged in nice ambiguity (Obama) or edgy radicalism (Edwards). The old-school conviction of liberals (Hillary) bores today’s postmoderns. If the young go to the polls the old-school is history.

There is only one answer to the populism of Edwards and the ambiguous we-are-all-united-because-we-are-essentially-the-same niceness of Obama. It is what they both emanate, in my opinion: anti-establishment conviction.

And that’s why people like Huckabee. That’s one reason people don’t trust Romney. The Republican establishment can say that it is an evangelical fluke until they are blue in the face, but we all know that if all the evangelicals that voted on Thursday night had voted for Huckabee the margin of victory would have been much larger. Evangelicals are not as monolithic as the Mormons. Granted, the evangelicals helped Huckabee and his joyride might be brief, but establishment Republicans ought to pay close attention to one obvious lesson: anti-establishment conviction is appealing, very appealing. And soon there won’t be enough money to stop it.

Hillary might be learning that lesson right now.

_______________________________________

Anti-establishment conviction is what appeals to humans. What politicians and pundits seem to forget is that voters are humans; not blacks, evangelicals, women, special-interest groups, and soccer-moms. They marvel that women voted for Obama instead of Hillary. I don’t marvel. Women are human. And humans in today’s world instinctively like Obama more than Hillary. Perhaps that’s why Huckabee did so well. As a pastor he learned that voters are essentially the same (they are human) and he read the Iowa voters more accurately than the professional analysts.

_________________________________

Personally, I haven’t decided who I like. I know I don’t like Romney although I suspect he’ll be the Republican nominee. If Romney is the Republican nominee, a Democrat will be in the White House. I am quite persuaded that Romney could never beat Hillary. Never. That’s what made the “it’s all about beating Hillary” statement so bizarre in my mind. It’s not because I have a great political mind. I don’t. But people are very much the same. Romney will never get independent voters in the general election because he doesn’t understand people. He could never beat Hillary if beating Hillary is the only objective conservatives have. Obama and Edwards, however, showed that anti-establishment conviction will beat Hillary. And the same goes for whoever the Republican party nominates (assuming Hillary is still in the picture). Romney does not have anti-establishment conviction. Paul and Huckabee do.

Now, whether they can win or not is irrelevant to my point. I don’t think they can. But I am quite certain that there is no way in the world an establishment Republican could beat Hillary in 2008. Hillary, though an establishment Democrat, is a woman. And a woman in the office may be the only change that postmoderns can get from the old-school politics. And they will take change just for change’s sake.

Huckabee deserves his win in Iowa. Whoever becomes the Republican candidate should learn a lesson or he won’t beat Hillary.