AUSTIN, Texas -- You must admit, the Iowa caucuses gave us a trove of
delights.
First there is the incomprehensible second-place finish of Steve Forbes, a
man with the charisma of former guv Dolph Briscoe. Now your cynics would
argue that Forbes proves that with enough money, you can elect a can of Alpo
president of this country.
What could be more mysterious than why voters would respond to Steve
Forbes? Is he cuddly? Does he seem like a statesman? Do you think he feels
our pain? Does he have a distinguished record? Do we actually think the most
crucial problem facing America today is that rich people need more money?
My long-held theory that Steve Forbes is an extraterrestrial (no belly
button on that one) may be relevant here. Forbes proposes to completely
scrap our current tax system -- always a satisfying notion in and of
itself -- and replace it with a flat tax instead. Why would anyone except
those in Forbes' tax bracket favor a move like that? And why would even rich
Americans, who Lord knows are making out like bandits in this two-tier
economy, feel entitled to even more?
(Granted, a flat tax has the charm of simplicity, rather like those folksy
nostrums that Ross Perot used to offer: "Let's look under the hood." "The
national debt is like a crazy aunt being kept in the basement.")
Pardon me if I got this wrong, but aren't those Iowa farmers who say they
want less government the same people who now declare the Republican "Freedom
to Farm Act" (the Gingrich Republicans always favored giving their bills
cute names designed to mask the intent of the bill) a disaster and want to
go back to the old system or something with higher subsidies?
Aren't they the ones who got angry at Bill Bradley because he voted against
the pork in a disaster-relief package while much of Iowa was flooded? Aren't
these the people who refuse to consider supporting anyone opposed to the
ethanol subsidy (a useless piece of junk, a total failure and something that
mainly benefits Archer-Daniels-Midland, a company quite famous for its
generous political contributions)?
And they vote for Steve Forbes because they want less government in their
lives?
I was pleased to see Alan Keyes take third place on the Republican side. He
is so clearly the most articulate and effective spokesman for the case of
the social conservatives that I think it's a case of virtue rewarded.
Loads of cheap cynics kept muttering, "Chance of a snowball in hell" and,
"What does he expect, running in the Republican Party?" Iowa social
conservatives, you may have noticed, are very white, while Mr. Keyes is very
black, and I think it speaks well for both that he was able to win so much
of their support.
At 14 percent, he should knock out two other social conservatives who got
around 8 percent. Think what he could do if he had money.
Not that I agree with anything he's ever said, but it's a pleasure to hear
an argument so well put. Besides, he was the only candidate who went into a
mosh pit. But somehow the social conservative case that the country is a
moral abyss -- that we're all sunk in sin, the sorriest set of humans since
Sodom and Gomorrah, rotten to the core, unrivalled in hedonism since the
palmiest days of the late Roman Empire, and so on and so forth -- seems just
a bit ... how to say this? ... well, wrong.
I don't know about your friends and neighbors, but mine are exceptionally
nice. Besides, it's politically off-putting to claim that you wear the
mantle of morality, as though everyone who disagrees with you is immoral.
Our Boy Shrub Bush gets the prize for most disingenuous post-caucus
statement. "I never dreamed I would get this high a vote," said Dubya, a man
who does not believe his own polling. The good news for Bush is that he drew
his 41 percent nicely from across the entire Republican spectrum: social
conservatives, anti-taxers, country club types. I'd say this was a good
solid win, although the more reserved "respectable win" favored by many
pundits probably has more to do with money spent than percentage drawn.
Bush also drew well among R's whose main reason for voting for him is that
they think he's the most likely to win. This is good news indeed for
Democrats, who are shaping up to nominate Al Gore. If the R's were bright
enough to nominate John McCain, we'd lose every independent vote in the
country.
The bad news for Shrub is that he got cornered and then beat over the head
on abortion, the subject he least likes to be specific about (except for
cocaine). Among the more intellectually rigorous pro-lifers, favoring
exceptions for rape, incest or saving the life of the mother is considered a
betrayal of the life-begins-at-egg-fertilization theory, which, logically,
such exceptions are.
Labor was a big factor on the D side in Iowa. Since I think endorsing Gore
is the only mistake I've seen AFL-CIO prez John Sweeney make, I'm sorry to
see just how effective the newly energized labor movement is.
That wasn't just Iowa labor people -- they called in organizers from Texas,
D.C. and all over the map. I haven't seen them work that hard since the time
they had to defeat that workplace-checkoff proposition in California.
I still think it's a swell political year with much more fun to come. It is
a shame, though, that the rest of the country doesn't get the same level of
exposure to the candidates or the intensity of media coverage of the
candidates that Iowa and New Hampshire do.
I have an idea: Let's do something about the nominating system. I know we
say this every time, of course. I just thought we might do it for a change.
Molly Ivins is a columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. To find out more about Molly Ivins and read features by other columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at
www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2000 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
