Rethinking Iowa... The Caucus System Keeps Democrats Dovish

[julialnyc]

Rethinking Iowa
The Caucus System Keeps Democrats Dovish
By Peter Beinart
Friday, January 14, 2005; Page A19
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Jan13.html

In December 2000, on an obscure Canadian talk show, an obscure Democratic governor attacked the Iowa caucuses. "If you look at the caucuses system," he said, "they are dominated by the special interests in both parties. The special interests don't represent the centrist tendencies of the American people. They represent the extremes."

The governor was Howard Dean. He was absolutely right. And now, as a candidate for chairman of the Democratic National Committee, he has a chance to do something about it.

Most Democrats recognize that they have a problem on national security -- a problem exemplified by November exit polls showing President Bush with an astounding 72-point lead among voters who cited "terrorism" as their overriding issue. What most Democrats don't recognize is that the Iowa caucuses are a critical part of that problem. For starters, Iowa Democrats are dovish even by Democratic standards. Historically, the "peace churches" -- Quakers, Mennonites and the Church of the Brethren -- have thrived in the state. Few states receive as few defense dollars as Iowa, and few have as great a skepticism toward military force. Henry Wallace, the most famous Democrat in Iowa history, left the party in 1948 in opposition to Harry Truman's containment policy toward the Soviet Union. Even the state's Republican senator, Charles Grassley, voted against the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Not surprisingly, this political culture expresses itself every four years in Iowa's Democratic caucuses. It is only a slight exaggeration to call the caucuses an outgrowth of the movement against the Vietnam War. In 1968, in an effort to wrest control from party bosses, antiwar liberals established a commission to open up the party's nominating system. Headed by Iowa Gov. Harold Hughes, who had nominated Eugene McCarthy on the 1968 convention floor, the commission wrote the rules that led to the caucuses' creation. The first candidate to exploit Iowa's new prominence was George McGovern, who finished a surprisingly strong second there in 1972, en route to defeating Edmund Muskie for the Democratic nomination. In 1976 Iowa catapulted Jimmy Carter to the presidency. By contrast, the caucuses proved disastrous for hawkish Washington state Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, who finished last there in both 1972 and 1976.

In recent years the caucuses have remained a graveyard for hawkish Democrats. Al Gore, running on his pro-defense record in 1988, boycotted Iowa, saying it "reward ideological purity rather than intellectual honesty." And in 2004, Joseph Lieberman and Wesley Clark, the two major candidates who placed the greatest emphasis on fighting terrorism, skipped Iowa as well. Instead, in the summer before the caucuses, vocal Iraq war opponent Howard Dean came from nowhere to grab first place in the Iowa polls. His rise set the tone for the race, forcing John Kerry and John Edwards to mimic his aggressively antiwar rhetoric and thus win back the caucus-goers Dean had lured away.

The problem isn't merely Iowa's political culture. It's also the caucus system itself, which amplifies the party's dovish, activist base. Although spawned by reforms aimed at making the nominating system more democratic, the Iowa caucuses aren't that democratic at all. In a primary, people can vote all day. But in Iowa, you must arrive at your precinct caucus site at exactly 6:30 p.m. and stay for several hours, which virtually bars people who work at night. There are no absentee ballots, and voting is not secret -- people often raise their hands to show whom they support. Democrats generally believe in making it easy to vote. But in Iowa, voting is comparatively difficult. And that difficulty is reflected in the percentage of people who participate: In both 2000 and 2004, roughly 50 percent of registered Democrats cast ballots in the New Hampshire primary. In the Iowa caucuses, it was between 10 and 20 percent.
more......

[NewYorkerfromMass]

1. If this were true then Dean or Kucinich, would have won. eom

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. Really, yes!

The guys who were against the war came in third and fifth, so there!

Besides, the article talks about being dovish as if that's a bad thing.

[trotsky]

2. Wait a minute.

If Iowa is so dovish, why did they pick #1 and #2 the two guys who voted FOR the IWR?

Something's not making sense.

[julialnyc]

3. I think what they mean

Is that a true blue state would pick a true Blue dem (IMO Clark or Dean would have won had NY or CA voted first)

[trotsky]

6. Quote from the article:

"In recent years the caucuses have remained a graveyard for hawkish Democrats."

That still makes no sense, especially when you consider how handily Kerry won, and how strong Edwards placed.

[Adelante]

8. National security

I think his main point is that Bush's perceived (don't ask me how) strength was in national security. A less "dovish" state than Iowa might have chosen a more "hawkish" candidate who could have beaten Bush on his own ground and enabled more of a crossover in the voting. Now, I always thought this was precisely why Kerry overtook Dean in Iowa, that when faced with the choice, Kerry was the stronger national security candidate between the two, so the article doesn't make sense entirely to me. I think Clark would have taken NY and California because he is liberal yet strong on national security.

[Adelante]

5. This is what he's saying happened

"in the summer before the caucuses, vocal Iraq war opponent Howard Dean came from nowhere to grab first place in the Iowa polls. His rise set the tone for the race, forcing John Kerry and John Edwards to mimic his aggressively antiwar rhetoric and thus win back the caucus-goers Dean had lured away."

So, Iowans thought they were voting antiwar.

Or so the writer says anyway.

[cestpaspossible]

7. Probably because they were thinking

instead of responding in knee-jerk fashion.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. This definitely doesn't make any sense. Where has this writer been?

----------------------------------------------------------
Save our country one town, county, and state at a time!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm#why

[IrateCitizen]

9. Beinart can piss up a rope...

He's done nothing but bash the antiwar movement while promoting the idea that the Democrats embrace a foreign policy more in line with the Bush doctrine.

He also helped pimp the Iraq war. How's that workin' out for ya, Pete? :eyes:

[cindyw]

10. Having a small state caucus first is of the utmost importance.

For the simple reason that the candidates must become comfortable talking to and listening to people. People with grand agendas are forced to sit down and remember that the role of President is about serving the people and not the other way around. The people of Iowa serve as a personal advise and consent for other Democrats on a scale small enough to be personal.

Now if the argument is made that Iowa is not true blue, then you must ask yourself, who then. Rhode Island? Connecticut? Would these states not nominate a person who may not appeal at all outside East Coast? Would not Louisiana nominate a Dem would be more of a DINO? Iowa is a centrist state. Their only fault seems to be that they nominate the persons who would make a good President and maybe not the person who would fire up the base.

[julialnyc]

11. but why only have Iowa

IMO I don't think one state should go first.

If candidates prepare they could hold more than one days elections first. The way the media works, Iowa gives the candidate too much momentum that by the time the election comes to most states the race is over.

I know I want my vote to count!

[cindyw]

12. Maybe it could be moved up and a Southern state caucus could be added

before New Hampshire. Or rather than Southern we could add a caucus in a western state.

[cattleman22]

14. I agree

I think that primaries should be split into regions. For example the Northeast, the southeast, the midwest, the southwest and the northwest. all states in a region would vote on one day. The order of the region voting first could rotate. This way candidates can spend lots of time in one region campaigning.

[theboss]

15. But the doves lost in Iowa....

I don't get this article.

[julialnyc]

16. question

I have a question anybody.......last election only had primaries for democrats (obviously) and in those primaries in some states you could vote if you were independent and in some states you had to be a registered dem.

First off, this time around in states where you can vote in primaries as an indie, can you vote for both parties, or can you only vote once.......and, is Iowa a place where you need to be registered for the party, or can you be indie...same thing with NH.


My republican step dad (I can't change him...I've tried) voted for Clark for me (he's a registered indie). He meant to be nice to me and stay out of political fighting, but I'm sure some people go in with bad intentions.