Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Iowa?
By Anna Schwartz

Two of the nine remaining Democratic presidential candidates, retired Gen. Wesley Clark and Senator Joe Lieberman, announced Monday that they would be skipping out on the Iowa caucuses. For Clark, this is probably a sound strategy: he joined the race approximately a month ago and will have neither the time nor opportunity to create the political network necessary to win the January 19th caucuses. Devoting his personnel and campaign funds to states where he has more time to make an impression, and a better chance of winning the hearts and minds of voters, makes sense (although it is, nonetheless, a risky move). In Lieberman’s case, however, bowing out of the Iowa race may be attributed purely to cowardice.

Iowa’s political significance originated in the 1976 primary when Jimmy Carter used the momentum he gathered there to kick open the door to the White House, and since then, no candidate who has skipped its caucuses has gone on to win the nomination (John McCain being the most recent example of this failure in the 2000 Republican primary). The Iowa caucus is one of the earliest and best indicators of a candidate’s chances at nomination – Democrats in Iowa represent the core of the Democratic party: blue collar workers who are to the left of the Democratic party spectrum and who are some of its most loyal voters. Howard Dean and Congressman Gephardt will be battling to win the state, with Senators Kerry and Edwards fighting for third place. Though Edwards offers that his parents were blue-collar workers, his status as a millionaire trial lawyer undermines this attempt to forge a blue-collar identity, positioning Dean and Gephardt as the two populist, labor-friendly candidates and thus the two most likely to have standpoints that resonate with Iowa voters.

Lieberman has not been polling well there – not surprising, considering his Iraq war hawkishness and penchant for international trade and globalization, two positions that most Iowans oppose. Nevertheless, not competing in Iowa is likely to have two consequences: first, it will alienate voters there and cause resentment in an important swing state in the general election (Gore won by only 4100 votes there in 2000). And secondly, it will destroy his credibility as a bona fide fighter and a bona fide Democratic candidate, rather than an overly intellectual, less attractive, Jewish version of President Bush. Forfeiting a state that is such an excellent proxy for left-leaning Middle America is tantamount to admitting defeat facing Bush next fall: if a Democratic candidate cannot even fare well in a state that contains the solid core of the leftist Democratic voters, how will Democrats ensure those votes come November? Not everyone can be a winner, no, but being an also-ran is a better choice than being a never-ran. Maybe, as Richard Perlstein argues in this week’s Village Voice, Lieberman should take the hint and drop out of the race altogether.

Whether or not the decision is voluntary, Lieberman will be steamrolled in the early primaries (although perhaps not in New Hampshire, given its proximity to Connecticut, his home state). His candidacy, based on name recognition and the fallacious logic that he is almost as conservative as Bush on many issues, (and will therefore be the best choice to beat him next fall), will soon be over. The moderate candidates – Kerry, Edwards, and Clark, one of whom is guaranteed to be at least the Vice Presidential nominee - bring enough centrism to the fold. Americans who vote Democratic in the fall do not want a different party’s reincarnation of Bush – they want a candidate who has strong, dissenting opinions that are neither too radical nor too conformist to Republican values. By admitting his failure to appeal to the left and center-left, Lieberman has entered the third tier of presidential candidates – that populated by Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Rev. Al Sharpton, and Ambassador Carol Moseley-Braun – who will accomplish nothing by their candidacy other than wasting a great deal of donors’ money and getting face time on C-SPAN at 3am.

Who’s afraid of the Big Bad Iowa? Joe Lieberman, whose absenteeism will fail to expand the sphere of political debate and fail to win him the nomination.

To Live and Die in the U.S.A.
By Jermaine Smith

Lately, our government has been sticking its nose where it does not belong.

Terri Schiavo, a Florida woman, is comatose. Mrs. Schiavo suffered heart failure over a decade ago that left her in a vegetative state, rendering her incapable of caring for herself or eating without a tube. During this period, her husband, Michael Schiavo, supported her and her family to the best of his abilities. However, after more than 12 years, Mr. Schiavo lost hope in his wife’s recovery, as doctors assured him there was no chance of improvement. With this diagnosis and Mrs. Schiavo’s personal request before the incident, Mr. Schiavo chose to have his wife’s feeding tube removed, allowing Mrs. Schiavo a peaceful end,.

However, Mrs. Schiavo parents, backed by Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, had different plans for her.

By order of Gov. Bush, Mrs. Schiavo’s feeding tube will be reinserted and she will be rehydrated. Mr. Bush and Mrs. Schiavo’s surviving family feel it is in her best interest to remain in this comatose state with the hope of improvement their doctors have guaranteed them. On the surface, this seems it should be a private family matter, but Gov. Bush’s intervention has made it not only a state issue, but also an issue with federal implications.

Allowing Gov. Bush to make the final decision over a personal choice such as the right to die places a frightening amount of power in our government’s hands. In America, there are two absolute truths: you will pay taxes and you will die. If the courts uphold Gov. Bush’s order, backed by the Florida legislature, ultimate control of both could lie in the hands of the government. Florida’s governor is not the only Bush interested in our private matters, however.

Yesterday, the Senate passed a bill, passed by the House earlier this year, banning “partial birth abortions,” a specific type of late-term abortion. President Bush voiced his enthusiasm and support for the legislation almost immediately, and plans to sign it into law. This would, many experts agree, openly defy the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that gave women the right to choose to abort a pregnancy (although this right was not unrestricted). While this legislation is an unpleasant suggestion to pro-choice advocates everywhere, the larger question is the precedent it will set for the legislation of social norms and the governmental incursion into matters of private choice.

With recent events, most importantly 9/11, the American government has increased its ability to encroach on many civil liberties, bending them in the effort to defeat terrorism. While the argument over these infringements continues, it is more alarming that recent legislation, such as the abortion bill, meet overwhelming acceptance in the House and Senate. Unlike the circumstances surrounding the Patriot Act, there is no longer a need for hasty judgment, no terrorist threat to thwart. The abortion bill allows the government into American citizens’ personal lives for no reason other than invasion, pure and simple.

Advocates of the abortion bill point to the cruelty and unjust nature of “killing” a human being, but ignore that the decision of Roe v. Wade, though giving a woman a right to an abortion during the entirety of the pregnancy, defined different levels of state interest for regulating abortion in the second and third trimesters. Effectively, this would declare illegal most abortions past the 1st trimester barring physical complications in nearly all states, the alleged function of the new measure.

The trend with the Bush administration is clear: there is no decision so personal that the government does not have input. This cavalier attitude towards private issues sets a precedent that may open the door to limitless legislative intrusions. If the administration aspires to shape the social landscape in America more effectively, perhaps they should start with simple comprehensive health care and let its citizens decide when and where to live or die.