Those Wonderful Primaries

By JEFF GREENFIELD

Is this any way to pick a president?" That is the question of choice for anyone aspiring to the title of Thoughtful Political Observer. It doesn't matter what year or decade we're talking about, that critique is obligatory.

Back in the day when party bosses chose presidential nominees at conventions, Thoughtful Political Observers (TPOS for short) demanded that voters be brought into the process through primaries. Frank R. Kent, one of the more prominent journalists of the 1920s and '30s, made something of a crusade out of this view.

When primaries took hold in the '70s, TPOS deplored the loss of seasoned political pros as gatekeepers and warned that the qualities needed to be a good candidate are not necessarily those required to be a good President. Later, TPOS switched their focus to the wearying length of the primary season, which stretched from February through June. This year, as the system became increasingly front loaded, the complaint was that the big states would be shut out, giving even more power to tiny, unrepresentative states like Iowa and New Hampshire.

So what's happened this year? In the Republican contest, at least, the process has proved to be something very close to admirable. Why? Consider what a good nominating system is intended to do:

Give the long shot a chance. New Hampshire, with its small population and open primary, gave John McCain a chance to be heard, face-to-face, in more than 100 town-hall meetings. And give McCain credit for driving a stake through the Iowa caucuses by declining to take part in that sham excuse for an early test. (Roughly 4% of the voting-age population participated this year. May the caucuses rest in peace.)

Spread the power geographically. After New Hampshire, the G.O.P. calendar gave half a dozen states a voice. They included bastions of Southern conservatism (Virginia and South Carolina), Midwest industrialism (Michigan), the Sun Belt and Pacific Northwest (Arizona and Washington State). Even North Dakota had a voice, however muted by massive indifference.

Don't shut the big states out. As it turns out, the Bush-McCain battle will be decided by the votes of California, New York, Ohio, Georgia, Massachusetts and perhaps even Florida, Texas and the cotton South as well. And if those contests still haven't decided matters, the battle will move on to Illinois and Pennsylvania. Moreover, those states provide a mix of rules--some allow only Republicans to be counted; some open the door to Independents; some include Democrats. By the end of the contest, just about every constituency will have a voice.

Now I realize that it is unsettling, perhaps even unethical, for a TPO to offer up a kind word or two in defense of any procedure shaped by professional politicians. But facts are facts. After years of campaigns followed by agonized wails that ask, "Is this any way to pick a President?"--it's nice to be able to answer at long last: "As a matter of fact, yeah."