Opinion

Iowa’s sound & fury

So we’ve had the sound (an endless series of Republican debates) and the fury (Newt Gingrich’s petty foot-stomping over his rough treatment by his main rival, Mitt Romney). Tonight, we get the significance. If the Iowa caucuses hold true to form, they’ll amount to pretty much . . . nothing.

Unless, of course, they do.

Recall that Mike Huckabee, the surprise breakout winner in Iowa four years ago, went on not to the presidency but to a slot on Fox News. That year, the eventual nominee, John McCain, finished in a tie with Fred Thompson for third place, well behind Huckabee and Romney.

Then there was George H.W. Bush’s victory over Ronald Reagan in 1980 and Bob Dole’s conquest of Bush I in 1988 — both decisions instantly reversed by voters in New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary, which often serves as a useful corrective to Iowa’s transient enthusiasms.

On the Democratic side, Iowa has produced such future nonpresidential candidates as Dick Gephardt in 1988, favorite son Tom Harkin, a landslide winner in 1992 with 76 percent of the vote, and, most memorably, “uncommitted,” who defeated Jimmy Carter handily back in 1976.

Yet the reason Iowa has partly eclipsed New Hampshire is Carter, who leveraged his second-place finish there all the way to the White House.

His victory thrilled the national press corps, which suddenly had an event that predated “the snows of New Hampshire” in importance, allowing campaign coverage to kick off even earlier.

The race to be first — first to host the economy-jolting arrival of hordes of reporters on expense accounts and the airwave saturation of campaign ads — has resulted in other states’ jockeying to get a piece of the pie. So Iowa has gradually pushed up its caucuses from late January in 1972 to early in the month, while New Hampshire has leapfrogged its primary from March back in 1952 to Jan. 10 this year.

One thing the caucuses do prove is the importance of organization. In tonight’s GOP caucuses (on the Democratic side, President Obama is unopposed), voters gather in schools, libraries and elsewhere to listen to some last-minute campaigning and then write down their presidential preference on a blank sheet of paper. Delegates to the county conventions are elected later.

The key in Iowa is getting your committed voters to the caucuses on a frigid midwestern night. No one knows this better than Barack Obama, the exception that proves the rule. Without the Hawkeye State, it’s likely that Obama would not be president today.

In 2008, he used Iowa to get off to a fast start, winning with 38 percent of the vote and stunning Hillary Clinton, the “inevitable” nominee, who finished third, behind John Edwards. Although she rallied to beat Obama in New Hampshire and later rolled up some impressive wins, she couldn’t overcome his lead in pledged delegates.

So we find ourselves mired in a political/media blitz that looks more like showbiz than statecraft: a kind of biennial spectator sport called “politics,” in which who’s up and who’s down is more important than what the candidates actually have done, stand for or might do. It’s an endless cycle that provides full employment for journalists but serves the electorate poorly.

Which means that at a time when we’ve never needed more rigorous examination of the issues, we get coverage worthy of Access Hollywood. As Herman Cain discovered when various lady friends emerged from the woodwork, one false step in this prolonged game of gotcha can have disastrous results.

Off past performance, then, steady-as-he-goes Mitt might eke out a victory tonight, with former Sen. Rick Santorum surging into second place to nip Ron Paul and be declared the “real” winner. A couple of candidates (Michele Bachmann and possibly Rick Perry) may drop out, while Newt Gingrich assesses his organizational deficiencies. Then everyone troops to New Hampshire, and we do it all over again.

Meanwhile, the nation reels from high unemployment, regulatory dictatorship, soaring deficits and skyrocketing debt, retreat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Plus, Iran’s on its way to acquiring nuclear weapons.

Is this any way to run a country?