Defending the Caucuses

IOWA IS "LIBERAL" ONLY IF YOU HAVE NEVER LIVED HERE

By Jim Hutter, Ph. D. © 2005
Assoc. Prof. of Political Science, Iowa State University


Iowa is fly-over land to those who live on the East and West coasts. To print and broadcast reporters, Iowa is a cold week in January once every four years. And Iowa is a favorite whipping boy for those who want the DNC to strip Iowa of its first-in-the-nation precinct caucuses.
But Iowa is NOT one of the most liberal states in the nation. Nor is its politics dominated by special interests.
Prior to his run for the Democratic nomination in 2004, Howard Dean said, "If you look at the caucuses system, they are dominated by the special interests in both parties….They represent the extremes." (Washington Post 1/14/05)
After more than a year spent meeting Iowans, Dean concluded that his previous assessment of Iowa politics was wrong. Recently, while running for DNC Chair, Dean has said that he sees no reason to remove Iowa from its first place position.

Is Grassley a Liberal Dove?
Iowa Democrats are dovish even by Democratic standards….Even the state's Republican senator, Charles Grassley, voted against the 1991 Persian Gulf War," wrote Peter Beinart (Washington Post 1/14/05). Being against a war is liberal?
Suggesting that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), whose 2004 presidential support score was 94 percent pro-Bush, is a liberal dove boggles the minds of Iowans.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (1/11/04) perpetuated the Iowa-is-liberal myth, saying: "Iowa's voting-age population [is] heavily tilted toward the Democratic Party's liberal and labor base." Actually, Iowa Republicans usually outnumber Democrats, and no-party registrants often outnumber both. Al Gore barely carried Iowa in 2000; Bush43 barely carried it in 2004. Where's the tilt?
This fallacy is regularly repeated in the media. A generation ago it was said that because Iowans opposed spending more money on defense, they were liberal doves. No, they were opposed to spending so much money!

Actual Caucus Results
As for Iowa Democratic caucus-goers being liberal extremists, here are the actual caucus winners, beginning in 1968: Edmund Muskie, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, and Dick Gephardt (who edged the more liberal Paul Simon and Michael Dukakis in 1988). In 1992, Iowa's own Tom Harkin won, followed by Clinton, and after a vigorous contest, Gore handily beat the more liberal Bill Bradley in 2000.
Widely portrayed as a liberal, Dean did not win in Iowa in 2004; he crash-landed in third place with 18 percent, far behind John Kerry (38%) and John Edwards (32%) and ahead of Gephardt (11%) and self-proclaimed ultra-liberal Dennis Kucinich (1%).
So where is the liberal bias of Iowa Democrats? Neither George McGovern, nor Fred Harris, nor Mo Udall, nor Ted Kennedy, nor Dukakis, nor Bradley, nor Kucinich ever rode a liberal wave to victory here.

Iowa a Bad Influence?
What about the "special interests," meaning Iowa's labor unions? This is an agricultural state more than a manufacturing state. Iowa leads in the production of corn, soybeans, and hogs, not automobiles.
Except for the firefighters union, which went with Kerry, labor split its endorsements between Gephardt and Dean. Neither candidate survived the Iowa caucuses. We have well-organized unions, but they do not dominate Iowa politics.
As Dean found out, neither is Iowa the state where the candidate with the biggest organization always wins. But Iowans' enthusiasm and organizational experience helps all candidates put their best foot forward.
In 2004 the number one issue guiding Iowa Democratic voters' choice was electability. Not who was the most liberal or who had labor's support or even who had the best field organization.

Ask the Candidates
Perhaps the politicians who campaigned in Iowa know best the value of the Iowa caucuses. Joe Biden spoke in a private residence in Ames in 1988 to 75 or so Democrats. He told them that on the day before he had been in Des Moines talking to a labor group. He was amazed that he got many questions on foreign policy and domestic policy "but not one question about labor!"
When he dropped out of the race later, Biden flew back to Des Moines to thank the many volunteers and staff who had made him an early front runner, extolling the Iowa experience.
On Monday night before Election Day 1988, Dukakis stopped in Des Moines just so he could thank Iowans, some 2000 of whom met him at the airport about 2 a.m. That was the value of the Iowa caucuses to Dukakis even though he had come in third.
Iowa has retail politics. Meeting candidates in their homes and schools and churches, Iowans take their caucus responsibilities seriously. The local news media provide extensive coverage for a year. It's a pretty level playing field.

The Blame Game
Some blame Iowans for having a veto over who will be the nominee, while others blame Iowans for never picking the next Democratic winner. Just as wrong is calling this a state of ultra-liberals and labor union members. Iowa helps to winnow the field, suggesting which aspirants are the most serious contenders.
Instead of blaming Iowa and its caucuses, perhaps we should blame the media, which went bonkers over Al Gore's "stiffness" and then had a feeding frenzy over the "Dean scream." Or blame the Democratic Party for treating the likes of Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton as serious contenders for the nomination, although both made welcome contributions to the 2004 debates.
Or blame the fact that the primary schedule was so bunched up that the race was over by March. Blame proportional representation, with supporters clinging to long-defeated candidates all the way to the national convention rather than building a crescendo of support for the eventual winner. And certainly blame the national conventions for no longer being conventions but just celebrations of who won.
But don't blame Iowa.