February 13, 2007
Primary Envy III Posted by Joshua Zeitz at 02:45 PM EST I find myself largely in agreement with John Steele Gordon, Julie Fenster, and Alexander Burns on the pressing need for primary reform. As Ms. Fenster points out, a state’s suitability to retail politics certainly doesn’t correspond to its civic-mindedness. Out of 38 states that had contested primaries in 2006, New Hampshire ranked twenty-eighth in voter turnout. In fairness, the only competitive New Hampshire primary last year was in the first congressional district (a race that turned out to be very interesting indeed; an insurgent antiwar Democrat ultimately defeated her party’s preferred candidate and then went on to unseat an incumbent Republican congressman). But if New Hampshire wishes to lay claim to first-in-the-nation status, it’s going to have to do better than that. When I was growing up, my parents used to vote even in uncontested primaries. They likened it to going to synagogue; it was just something you were supposed to do, especially if you boasted special civic piety. (One of the arguments New Hampshire politicians often invoke to protect their first-in-the-nation status is that most other states have lower turnout in presidential primaries. But this is a loaded argument. Of course voter turnout is lower in, say, New Jersey. In past years, by the time the Garden State presidential primary came around in June, the presidential nominees were already chosen. As the 2006 off-year primaries demonstrated, New Hampshire voters are no different from anyone else. When the stakes are low, they stay home and watch television. The really interesting question is whether turnout in New Jersey will exceed turnout in New Hampshire in 2008, as the state legislature in Trenton has moved its primary date to February.)
If New Hampshire voters aren’t any more civic-minded than the rest of the country, neither have they been any better informed, despite the lavish attention heaped upon them by presidential contenders. This has been the case since the very birth of the New Hampshire myth. In the wake of his primary victory in 1968, exit polls showed that a large number of Eugene McCarthy’s supporters mistook him for Joseph McCarthy, the conservative Republican senator from Wisconsin who had been dead for 11 years. These same polls showed that 55 percent of McCarthy voters supported the bombing campaign against North Vietnam, even though McCarthy’s entire candidacy was predicated on a bombing halt. Then and now, New Hampshire voters are every bit as misinformed as the larger American electorate. I’m not arguing that New Hampshire is a bad place. Quite to the contrary. It’s a lovely place. It’s got clean lakes to swim in, tall mountains to hike, beautiful town greens, covered bridges, and tax-free outlet malls. Can’t go wrong on any of those counts. But why should it get to go first? Effectively, if I might invoke some grade-school logic, because it called first. In 1968, when Eugene McCarthy won an upset victory against Lyndon Johnson in the New Hampshire primary, thus giving birth to the tremendous lore surrounding the Granite State primary, only 15 states chose their delegates by primary. At least 57 percent of national convention delegates were selected by county committeemen, state party apparatchiks, and elected officials. Though he didn’t compete in a single primary that year, as early as June 2, Vice President Hubert Humphrey had enough delegates to secure the nomination. Which is to say, neither the New Hampshire primary nor the national system of primaries and caucuses is an ancient or timeless political tradition. When the Democrats changed their rules in the early 1970s and made primaries the chief vehicle for selecting convention delegates, New Hampshire capitalized on the McCarthy myth and, in 1975, passed a state law mandating first-in-the-nation status. Incredibly, the state legislature in Concord continues to believe that its laws are binding on the nation. I like John Steele Gordon’s idea, but I wouldn’t hold my breath for seeing it enacted. Presidential candidates are obsequious in their courtship of Granite State voters. It’s why Bill Clinton didn’t even bother to compete in Delaware in 1992; he didn’t want to upset New Hampshire notables who were peeved at Delaware for moving its primary up. My guess is that more states will push their primaries forward, and in 2012 New Hampshire will hold its primary on the day preceding Thanksgiving 2011. After all, it’s only fair. They called first.
|
