­
As 2008 gets off to a start, however, with the first climax of the seemingly endless silly season known as the primaries, the hope of a New Year comes burdened with questions. For example:

The Iowa Primaries

Arianna Huffington and many other political observers are jubilant about the Iowa primaries. That Obama Barack, a young black man, can win a primary in a primarily white state is seen – correctly, in my opinion – as a triumph for the US. “It's the kind of country we've always imagined ourselves being — even if in the last seven years we fell horribly short: A young country, an optimistic country, a forward-looking country, a country not afraid to take risks or to dream big,” she writes (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/obama-wins-iowa-why-ever_b_79663.html). Another reason to jump: A high voter turnout, which demonstrates a resurgence in civic participation.

But – and you knew there would be a but, right? – the clamour about Iowa’s importance in the grand scheme of things has rightly been questioned by many, many people around the country. Iowa has a population of about three million; California is above 36 million. So why does Iowa’s primary have so much heft? As a result of this first of primaries, Biden and Dodd have dropped out. If you’re in California and were hoping to cast your vote for either of these gentlemen, tough luck; Iowa has taken that choice away from you. Yeah, yeah; I know. You’ve heard this all before, right? Great…what are you going to do about it?

While the efforts to consolidate some primaries into a “Tsunami Tuesday” are laudable, the fact is that there is no real progress in creating a system that not only works, but is fair. The politicians’ solution is to avoid talking about the problem and spend record amounts of money on the traditional way so that they can get that all-important win. Is a system broken when there’s no one around to fix it?

Federal Vs. State

In an act that lets me see Gov. Schwarzenegger in a better light than when he first took office, the state of California passed a law to curb greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. But as reported in this article (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-epa3jan03,1,6621373.story?ctrack=2&cset=true ) by the L.A. Times, the EPA has refused to issue California a waiver to enforce that law, citing the opinion that a national strategy is superior to a state-based strategy. In other words, climate change laws should be left to the federal government and not to states.

That’s all well and good, except for the questionable motivations at play. Considering that President Bush, like many conservatives, would be happy to overturn Roe v. Wade and leave it to states to pass their own laws on abortion, what we have here, in the case of climate laws, is self-serving federalism. California, whether through seismic building codes or environmental laws, tends to be tougher than other states. The solution, of course, is to use the federal government as a bludgeon.

And what’s the larger picture? That along with America’s questionable democratic nature, there is a great deal of fuzziness – the Constitution notwithstanding – concerning the division of powers between states and the federal government. As 2008 shapes up to be what pundits everywhere are calling one of the most crucial presidential elections in recent history, getting a precise understanding of government that goes beyond pop-conservative or pop-liberal sound bites is almost like trying to find the Holy Grail. Yet that understanding is vital if we are to achieve some measure of stability and compromise, whether it involves environmental issues or the culture wars.

Of course, greater understanding of what’s going around us is vital for all that we do. Hence my wish for the New Year: Less partisan bickering and ideological posturing, more empathy and compromise.

Happy New Year, dear readers; may it be successful, healthy and fulfilling.