Iowa voters who went to the caucuses yesterday, and New Hampshire voters who head to the polls next week, must battle the widespread criticism that our nation's primary election process puts too much power in the hands of a few small unrepresentative states, unfairly positioning winners and losers before the national voting audience has a chance to fully evaluate all the contenders.
It may not be surprising for a former New Hampshire senator to come to the defense of the early voting states. But I believe my argument stands on its own: There is plenty of time and there are plenty of ways for voters around the country to learn about the candidates. Yet the best way to get a sense of the candidates' characters and positions is to force them into targeted, up-close-and-personal, Iowa-style campaigning.
In response to the criticism that the early primaries and caucuses, followed by a quick succession of nominating contests, deprive most voters of sufficient time for deliberation, it should be noted that this presidential race has been going on for more than a year. It has dominated national headlines and political talk shows. It has included nearly three dozen nationally televised or online debates. And everything from campaign ads to the candidates' favorite books can be found easily on the Web.
That said, official websites and paid advertising, circumscribed debates and roped-off events, promote canned commentary and poll-tested messaging more appropriate for marketing breakfast cereal than running for the highest office in the nation. They allow candidates to avoid hard questions. They make it hard to tell what's manufactured and what's real.
The early primaries and caucuses offer no such shelter. Whether at a diner, a town hall meeting or on a factory floor, there is little separation between those seeking office and those who can help get them elected. Strategies driven by Madison Avenue and K Street tend to flounder. Attempts to provide cosmetic answers to complex challenges are often met with disaffection and more than a few lost votes, especially among those ever-important independents. On the other hand, votes can be won when candidates convey that they mean what they say.
So, at a forum last March in Nevada, an early caucus state, Sen. Barack Obama tried to skirt questions about his health-care plan by speaking about how "the most important challenge is to build a political consensus around the need to solve this problem." He was forced to admit he didn't yet have a detailed plan. But he knew enough to quickly put one together, rolling it out in Iowa City two months later.
To take another example, Sen. John McCain opposes ethanol subsidies -- not a popular position in Iowa, the country's biggest corn-growing state. Yet he earned respect among Iowa voters for being straight when talking to biofuel proponents.
The voter-driven process in these states discourages superficiality, rewards authenticity and highlights the true characters and positions of the candidates. All of that is then captured, minute by minute, and disseminated nationally by the news media. Because of the unique role the early contests play in our national political process, ultimately everyone gets to know the candidates better.
Critics of the current system have proposed various alternatives that would allow more voters in more states to directly engage the candidates. It may well be worth considering a system of regional primaries and a shorter election cycle. But even then, it would be best to preserve the role of the few early states. If we want serious and straight answers from the candidates, there's no substitute.
The writer was a U.S. senator from New Hampshire from 1980 to 1993 and is now co-chairman of global advisory firm Stonebridge International. He has endorsed John McCain for president.
