Julian Castro: First primary states should be more reflective of American diversity

Democratic presidential candidate Julián Castro recently said that Iowa and New Hampshire should no longer be the first states to hold a caucus and a primary, opining that it's time to "change the order of the states."  The former mayor of San Antonio told MSNBC — during a campaign stop in Iowa, no less —  "I don't believe we're the same country we were in 1972.  That's when Iowa first held its caucus first, and by the time we have the next presidential election in 2024, it'll have been more than 50 years since 1972.  Our country's changed a lot in those 50 years."

Astute observation, Sherlock.  What are you really trying to say?

Castro added that the two states, demographically speaking, are "not reflective of the United States as a whole, certainly not reflective of the Democratic Party, and I believe that other states should have their chance[.] ... I don't believe that forever we should be married to Iowa and New Hampshire going first."  Ah, there it is: Iowa and New Hampshire are too white.

Fidel Julián Castro did compliment the states, noting: "What I really appreciate about Iowans and the folks in New Hampshire is that they take this process very seriously.  They vet the candidates, they show up at town halls, they give people a good hearing."

There's another reason why he doesn't want them to lead off the nominating calendar.

Castro, the lone Latino among the plethora of Democratic candidates, failed to mention that Nevada, a state with a large and growing minority population, and South Carolina, where black voters constitute the majority of the party's primary electorate, are the third and fourth states, respectively, to hold caucuses or primaries.  Apparently, the fact that two of the first four states to nominate are bursting with Castro's kind of diversity is not enough to assuage him.  (White votes don't matter?)  The fact that all candidates need to campaign in different states and speak to different constituencies is a good thing and should be embraced in a representative republic.  Instead, Castro wants to change the rules.  Whether it's dispensing with the Electoral College, lowering the voting age, or welcoming illegal aliens, Democrats will entertain any idea that helps them get and retain power and control, regardless of the damage it inflicts on the country they supposedly represent or the Constitution they supposedly swore to defend.

Castro's remarks are in keeping with another Democratic tradition: if you lose — or are losing — blame something or someone else.

Does Castro think every state should have the exact same demographic makeup?  Does he think the federal government should somehow try to mandate this?  After all, Democrats love equal outcomes.  Perhaps he isn't well versed in federalism and republicanism.  Or perhaps he just doesn't much care for those principles.

What states should have the privilege of going first, Mr. Castro?  Which are perfectly representative of the nation as a whole?  Florida and Arizona have too many old people, right?  Pennsylvania has far more Quakers than the other states.  That's not reflective of the nation at large.  Utah has far more Mormons than other states, so it's out, too.  Alaska?  Too many Eskimos.  Oklahoma?  Nope, too many workers in the oil industry.  That's certainly not reflective of the Democratic Party.

Enter hypocrisy, which most assuredly is reflective of the Democratic Party.  Castro could be thinking: "Which state has the most socialists?  Maybe that state should hold the first caucus or primary.  On the other hand, Virginia and Maryland have the most Deep-Staters; perhaps they should replace Iowa and New Hampshire.  Or how about Texas?  Texas is my home state and has a very high number of Latino residents.  That might be fair.  It's also turning blue before our very eyes.  That's so cool."

Don't forget about California, Julián.  It has the greatest number of morons — at least in government.  While that isn't representative of most of America, it is certainly reflective of today's Democratic Party.

Image: Commonwealth Club via Flickr.

Democratic presidential candidate Julián Castro recently said that Iowa and New Hampshire should no longer be the first states to hold a caucus and a primary, opining that it's time to "change the order of the states."  The former mayor of San Antonio told MSNBC — during a campaign stop in Iowa, no less —  "I don't believe we're the same country we were in 1972.  That's when Iowa first held its caucus first, and by the time we have the next presidential election in 2024, it'll have been more than 50 years since 1972.  Our country's changed a lot in those 50 years."

Astute observation, Sherlock.  What are you really trying to say?

Castro added that the two states, demographically speaking, are "not reflective of the United States as a whole, certainly not reflective of the Democratic Party, and I believe that other states should have their chance[.] ... I don't believe that forever we should be married to Iowa and New Hampshire going first."  Ah, there it is: Iowa and New Hampshire are too white.

Fidel Julián Castro did compliment the states, noting: "What I really appreciate about Iowans and the folks in New Hampshire is that they take this process very seriously.  They vet the candidates, they show up at town halls, they give people a good hearing."

There's another reason why he doesn't want them to lead off the nominating calendar.

Castro, the lone Latino among the plethora of Democratic candidates, failed to mention that Nevada, a state with a large and growing minority population, and South Carolina, where black voters constitute the majority of the party's primary electorate, are the third and fourth states, respectively, to hold caucuses or primaries.  Apparently, the fact that two of the first four states to nominate are bursting with Castro's kind of diversity is not enough to assuage him.  (White votes don't matter?)  The fact that all candidates need to campaign in different states and speak to different constituencies is a good thing and should be embraced in a representative republic.  Instead, Castro wants to change the rules.  Whether it's dispensing with the Electoral College, lowering the voting age, or welcoming illegal aliens, Democrats will entertain any idea that helps them get and retain power and control, regardless of the damage it inflicts on the country they supposedly represent or the Constitution they supposedly swore to defend.

Castro's remarks are in keeping with another Democratic tradition: if you lose — or are losing — blame something or someone else.

Does Castro think every state should have the exact same demographic makeup?  Does he think the federal government should somehow try to mandate this?  After all, Democrats love equal outcomes.  Perhaps he isn't well versed in federalism and republicanism.  Or perhaps he just doesn't much care for those principles.

What states should have the privilege of going first, Mr. Castro?  Which are perfectly representative of the nation as a whole?  Florida and Arizona have too many old people, right?  Pennsylvania has far more Quakers than the other states.  That's not reflective of the nation at large.  Utah has far more Mormons than other states, so it's out, too.  Alaska?  Too many Eskimos.  Oklahoma?  Nope, too many workers in the oil industry.  That's certainly not reflective of the Democratic Party.

Enter hypocrisy, which most assuredly is reflective of the Democratic Party.  Castro could be thinking: "Which state has the most socialists?  Maybe that state should hold the first caucus or primary.  On the other hand, Virginia and Maryland have the most Deep-Staters; perhaps they should replace Iowa and New Hampshire.  Or how about Texas?  Texas is my home state and has a very high number of Latino residents.  That might be fair.  It's also turning blue before our very eyes.  That's so cool."

Don't forget about California, Julián.  It has the greatest number of morons — at least in government.  While that isn't representative of most of America, it is certainly reflective of today's Democratic Party.

Image: Commonwealth Club via Flickr.