So Newt Gingrich wins the South Carolina primary yesterday.
Well, well, well. This might be an interesting election season after all.
For those of you who ask, “Who’s Newt Gingrich?” or who ask, “Who cares about primary elections in South Carolina or anywhere else?” let’s discuss your role in a democracy.
In a democracy, you don’t run the country, but you elect who does. If you care about how your country works (or doesn’t), you ought to care about elections.
Primary elections come before general elections because in primaries, the voters for each party choose their candidates for the general election. This is important and newsworthy this year because it’s a presidential election year. Therefore, parties are choosing their candidates for president.
For Democrats, it’s easy: Since Obama is eligible to serve a second term, he’s the go-to choice for Democrats.
Republicans are looking for a good man (the choices now are all men) to beat Obama.
No one person has emerged as a clear choice which means Republican voters in upcoming primaries may actually cast meaningful votes. Unlike the general election which is Nov. 6, each state chooses when to have its primary or, alternatively, caucus. For Minnesota Transplant readers, the caucus in Minnesota is Feb. 7. In Illinois, the primary is March 20. In Texas, the primary is April 3.
At this point, there for four main Republican presidential candidates:
- Mitt Romney, a former governor from Massachusetts with lots of hair and money.
- Newt Gingrich, a former Speaker of the House with lots of hot air and ex-wives.
- Rick Santorum, a former congressman who claims to be a “true conservative” with lots of kids.
- Ron Paul, a former ob/gyn and current congressman who has delivered lots of babies and refuses to participate in the congressional pension system.
Now that the clown brigade of Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry have dropped out of the race, the Republicans have some interesting choices.
I would love to see Newt Gingrich emerge victorious if only for one reason: The presidential debates would be the best reality TV in years.
To see two fine speakers with diametrically opposed philosophies go head to head in a series of Lincoln-Douglas style debates is a poli-sci major’s dream.
Oops, have I lost you? Back in 1858, Abraham Lincoln (who later became president) was running against Stephen Douglas for U.S. Senate. The two lively speakers engaged in a series of debates around Illinois that have become icons of the political debates in that they place high value on logic, ethical values and philosophy.
Anyway, to see Obama and Gingrich go at it on important topics like the economy, Washington politics and foreign policy would be fascinating. Both men can speak intelligently without a bunch of puppeteers pulling the strings.
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves: Gingrich may still flame out, leaving us with Mitt Romney.
More than a decade ago, a good-looking salesman joined the team at my place of employment. He looked good and sounded even better, but over time, it became apparent he was all flash, no substance. A colleague (who, by the way, wasn’t nearly as handsome) called him an “empty suit.” I fear that’s what Mitt Romney is. An empty suit.
Gingrich, on the other hand, is popping his buttons, he’s so full of substance. By his own account, “I think grandiose thoughts.”
In any case, I would prefer a president with a big head over one in an empty suit. And in the short term, Gingrich would make the coming months leading up to the November election a lot more interesting than Romney would. And interesting candidates are conducive to engaging the populace.
Here’s to well-informed voters. Be one.