Iowa Caucus 2008: Reselling Retail Politics
Hollie Russon Gilman
Abstract:
In this paper I provide the history of the McGovern-Fraser Committee Reforms
that enabled the modern Iowa Caucus System. I show why the reforms sought to
democratize the process but the four factors of 1) lack of broad representation 2) chance 3)
rhetoric and 4) media are detrimental to the ability for individual action within the Iowa
Caucus. I use my first hand experience in Iowa to suggest that instead of enabling
democratic, retail politics the Iowa caucus creates lasting social relations. Though
America is in need of social relations, conflating a social process as a political process is
dangerous to American democracy.
Introduction:
Caucus comes from the Indian word cawcawwassough or ca['u] cau-as'u one who
urges or pushes on, a promoter.1 Yet from the time of our Founding Fathers, the caucus
has signified a group of people coming together to make political decisions. America
began its democratic republic, at least in theory, with the paradigm of civic voluntarism
that Tocqueville cited as one of the major distinguishing characteristics of America.2 In
fact one of the key features of the modern American era, according to Durkheim, was the
formation of organic solidarity. It is precisely the type of civic voluntarism, which
Tocqueville lauded as uniquely American, that enables a collective consciousness or
effervescence in the political realm. 3
What are the consequences for participatory democracy in America when our
nation becomes too large, amongst other changes, for the branch of civic voluntarism that
had become brandished as quintessentially American? 4 It seems as though the only
response is a massive set of reforms that seek to create an artificial venue for classic,
“retail politics.” The Iowa caucus, since the Presidential Reforms of the 1970’s, is a
microcosm for the “retail politics” that used to dominate the American political process.
In this paper I will outline the concept of “retail politics,” the reforms of 1970 and the
implications on Iowa today.
Another interesting facet of the Iowan caucus is the Republican Ames Straw Poll.
Even though the Ames straw poll is by no means considered an accurate prediction of
choice (voters must purchase a ticket and campaigns have no problem busing loads of
supports in for the event) the public still use the results of this poll. Why is an artificially
constructed poll used as indicator of voter preference? This event is an exhibition of
campaign organization, funding, and outreach and may suggest these are some of the
most important qualities for Iowan voters.
The Internet, mass media and the influx of money during the caucus/primary
season have altered the nature of politics. It is unclear what the direct correlation is
between the media and the increased amount of spending. What is clear is that for
primary and caucus voters’ communication and organization is key. The reforms have
1
http://dict.die.net/caucus/
Tocqueville, Democracy in America
3
Durkehim, Division of Labour in Society
4
There have always been limitations, based on class, race, and gender that have prohibited any sort of
nearly perfectly participatory democracy. However, for the purposes of this study the conceptualization of
this “civic voluntarism” is paramount.
2
1
created a system where candidates have no choice but to pump excessive money into
early campaigns and participate in the caucus/primary system if they want to be
considered a viable candidate. According to Baumgartner, “there seems to be a certain
addictive nature to the acquisition of campaign resources (including media coverage)
before and during the primary season, meaning that the more one has, the great one’s
ability to acquire more” (Baumgarnter. 124).
The domino effect of fundraising is paralleled in the behavior of the media that
can make or break a candidacy by deciding to offer more or less coverage. In the 1976
campaign of Jimmy Carter or the 2004 campaign of Howard Dean, the media decided to
offer a lot of media attention to these two candidates, which helped in turn to raise their
national profile, their ability to fundraise, and the money spent on organization. The
increased organization in tern increased Iowan preference for these two candidates.
The cyclical nature of caucus/primary session is only one of the ways where Iowa
becomes a skewed electorate. When I go into further details of the mechanics of the
primary, I will discuss how the caucus is not regulated like a primary; there is no
legitimization of voter’s affiliation, or systematic procedure for voter count. The
residents represent neither the socioeconomic nor racial diversity of America. However,
Hull’s regression analysis using an “African-American dummy variable . . . does not
“damage the prospects for minority candidates, controlling for their ideology, electability,
and viability” (Hull. 214). Hull correctly questions whether or not conceptualizations of
ideology, electability, and viability may in fact be inextricably linked with Iowan’s racial
attitudes (Hull. 214).
As I will show, there are numerous limitations to the legitimacy of the Iowan
caucus. I entered this project questioning why some of the biggest political strategists
were moving out of their comfortable East Coast homes to live in Iowa. I was
immediately intrigued about the proverbial ‘real America’ the beltway strategists are
echelons away from. Instead of taking the entire fall quarter off to work in the Iowa
caucus I decided to study it and then spend my winter vacation in Iowa on the campaign
trail. My conclusion remarks will reflect my experience in Iowa.
While reading about the Iowa caucus inside the academy I was initially rife with
skepticism: an artificially contrived electorate has been given unprecedented weight in
determining the future President of the United States of America. As I researched the
caucus further I starting to believe that the caucus is one of the last remaining venues
where people can decide, based on human interaction, who they want their president to
be. While the caucus has became a lot of spectacle and organization is a factor that
influences voters, “spending more on television relative to one’s competitors may
actually harm candidates” (Hull. 263). There are many ways to streamline the amount of
money pumped into the Iowa caucus and legitimize the procedures for caucus goers.
However, the spontaneity, authenticity, and basic premise of the caucus serve as a type of
test of the future President of the United States that greatly aids our political process.
Yet, after spending nearly a month working sixteen hour days, seven days a week
helping Senator Clinton in Ames, IA office I am more disillusioned by the system.
Without a doubt the caucus creates lasting relationships amongst supporters and between
locals and leaders. The caucus encourages a strong assessment of candidates’ policies,
proposals, and protocols. Yet, the system itself is replete with inconsistencies, anomalies
and does not necessarily serve as a referendum on candidates’ qualifications for being
2
elected President of the United States of America. The caucus itself, and the sporadic and
uneven attention given to Iowans for a set period only reinforce the lack of input Iowans
typically have during the political process. Not only is the caucus itself entirely
unregulated, by the very spectacle of the event places a band-aid over the larger wounds
much of our nation, particularly places like Iowa, suffer from as we enter the 21st
Century.
In this paper I will outline the reforms that enables the modern caucus system and
show how the inconsistencies of 1)media 2) rhetoric 3) chance 4) and the very spectacle
of the caucus itself create a system that fails as a legitimate political process, will
succeeding as legitimate social process.
The Post- 1968 Presidential Election Reforms
“The whole environment of politics had come apart, I mean had become polluted and
destroyed and violent and bad and I tried to put it together”
- Former Presidential candidate Hubert H. Humphrey, reflecting on his
speech accepting the Democratic presidential nomination in 1968 (cited in
Farber 1966:204)
Hubert Humphrey was referring to the events at and around the Democratic
national convention of 1968. The convention, both the riots outside and the turmoil
inside, reflected the state of the American political system. The response was two
committees, the Commission on Party Structure and Delegate selection, commonly
referred to as the McGovern-Fraser Commission, after its chairman. One of the main
critiques of the pre-reform system was that the system was undemocratic. The reforms
sought to increase the possibilities for popular input into the nomination system
(Cooper.772). By 1972 a reformed nominating system was in place to allow for the
majority of convention delegates to be selected by way of direct primaries and caucuses.
The reforms were aimed at taking the control of delegates away from state and
local party officials. The rules aimed at taking control away from party bosses and the
media coverage legitimizing primaries had a large role in the reforms. Some have argued
that the new rules were a sign of a party decline rather than ideology
(Norrander:1996.876). The reforms came to national attention in 1972, with a series of
articles in the New York Times on how non-primary states would choose their delegates
for the national conventions. Democratic operative Norma S. Matthews, state co-chair of
the George McGovern campaign, helped engineer the early January start for Iowa.
The goals of the McGovern-Fraser commission were not to increase the number
of primaries but rather to make the selection process fairer by opening it up to more
participants (Norrander:1996.876). Most of the rules and constraints were applied to
Democrats: “mandating that state parties ‘assure that such delegates have been selected
through a process in which all Democratic voters have had full and timely opportunity to
participate” (Polsby. 89). States passed their own rules resulting in more primary
elections. In1968 sixteen states held primaries whereas by 1988 thirty-three were
scheduled. There are forty-seven states scheduled to hold primaries in 2008.
The eighteen new regulations of the committee insured open meetings to all
people and not only gave people a right to vote but also guaranteed that their vote
mattered. Primaries were scheduled closer to the fall general election and included
various demographic groups in proportion to their size in the population. A study by
James Lengle and Bryon Shafer states, “ By 1972, the linkage between candidate
3
preference and delegate selection had been tightened so much that the free agents of past
primaries – ‘favorite sons,’ ‘bosses,’ and ‘uncommitted’ delegates – had almost
disappeared” (Polsby.93). The result of having more people determine delegates was that
more people had to be reached in the course of the Presidential campaign.
The Impact of the Reforms
The Impact of the Reforms was the creation of the “The Invisible Primary.”5
Specifically, the fact of winning the nomination increasingly depends on a candidate’s
ability to raise the early money necessary to make a series bid in the front-loaded primary
season. Those who cannot raise the money are winnowed out before the primary season
even begins.
The McGovern-Fraser reforms democratized the nomination process, but also
increased the role of the media, the necessity for fundraising long before an election, and
campaign organization. In Iowa, expenditures increased by 311 percent from 1976 to
1988. The need for large amounts of money altered the very structure of acquiring
money. PACs, “political action committees headed by . . .federal politicians, but
independent of their campaign committees . . [and] registered with the Federal Election
Commission (FEC) as a non-connected, multi- candidate political committees.”
(Baumgarnter.90). The FEC was created in 1974 to introduce legal limits on
expenditures. According to the FEC an organization becomes a “political committee” by
receiving contributions or making expenditures in excess of $1,000 for the purpose of
influencing a federal election.
Ronald Reagan became the first presidential candidate to create a leadership PAC.
In 1977 he transferred money left over from his 1976 candidacy to his newly formed
Citizens for the Republic in order to raise $6.7 million. While 10 percent of the funds
went to help other candidates for other offices, the majority of the money was used to
help finance Reagan’s 1980 campaign. By 1988, 10 out of the 13 major-party candidates
formed and used leadership PACs – spending $25.2 million between them. PACs
represent one way in which the necessity for money, early, in the Presidential election
have altered the Presidential nominating process
The rise of large sums of money is directly related to the media’s attention of a
candidate. One paragon of the role of the media is the now regular practice of a
candidate holding a press conference to announce candidacy. In fact, Fred Thompson
announced his candidacy in the Fall 2007 on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno while
opting out of one of the televised Republican Debates. The principle underlying flashy
announcements is that it will generate more media coverage. This is just one instance
where candidates engage with the media because of the cyclical nature: the more a
candidate humors the media, the more coverage they will receive (ideally). Candidates
are left with no choice but to fuel to the cycle of the media if they want to remain a viable
candidate.
The media begins forecasting and potentially handicapping a race months before
the first caucus in Iowa based on candidates ability to raise funds (Baumgartner.125).
Many agree that this “bandwagon” effect enhances a candidate’s ability to garner
resources and in turn secure the nomination. As early of March 1999 U.S. News and
Reports George W. Bush “The Man to Beat” which was then used in turn by his
5
Arthur Hadley first introduced this idea.
4
campaign for fundraising ends. While the direct impact of such media proclamations is
nebulous, they undoubtedly have some impact on voters.
According to Norrander, expectations for candidates’ performance developed by
the media play an important role in the way the media interpret primary and caucus
outcomes (Norrander:1996:882). For instance, based on the grassroots fundraising
momentum acquired by Howard Dean and his vociferous supporters many pundits
believed he would win the Iowa caucus. As a result, when he did not (and let out an
audible sign of his disappointment) the media presented him as failing behind
expectations.
Reform era presidential politics extend the idea of the medium is the message 6 to
the media as the electorate. In the 1968 and 1972 New Hampshire primaries, the media
made a decision to give more extensive coverage to second-place candidates who
unexpectedly do better than expected while first-place candidates fail to meet
expectations. Media coverage is typically more harsh toward front-runner candidates and
candidates approaching front-runner status (Norrander:1996.882).
It is not only what the media chooses to cover in the course of the Presidential
nomination, but the manner in which they choose to cover it. Scholars of this topic
converge around the notion that media coverage during the nomination process covers the
“horse race” components rather than the issues or candidate qualities
(Norrander:1996.883). “Horse race” components include campaign matters such as
organizations and character and ultimately center around who wins/looses in the caucus
and primaries. While later primary season coverage focuses on issues. Survey’s show
that citizens are able to recall “horse race facts,” such as who won the Iowa Caucus better
than they can remember issue positions. However, it is unclear if the media has
perpetuated these memories by selective coverage or if these facts are naturally easier to
remember.
Norrander cites Mathews (1978) as laying out “manifest effects” and “latent
effects” (Norrander:1996.883). “Manifest effects” include the intentional outcomes
devised by the media, while “latent effects” occur as reporters searching for a good story
end up covering those candidates that are already doing well in the primaries. Much of
the future scholarship on the media ought to delve into the less researched “latent
effects.”
There is an increasingly large discourse emerging on the role of media in
democracies. For the purposes of this project I will refrain from fully engaging in it. The
media illuminates the main way that the reforms overlooked the Weberan “paradoxical
consequences7” that would arise by creating a primary session where candidates had to
reach out to as many voters as possible. The media would become the conduit by which
voters received candidate information. Cooper notes, “That the reforms dramatically
democratized inputs into the nomination process is indisputable. Whether the reforms
democratized the outputs (surely as important as question) is much harder to measure”
(Cooper.73).
At the same time, while media and money have become major entities of the
nomination process, new-media has also enabled more diversity of thought. While at a
recent event dubbed “The Net Effect” a University of Chicago students mentioned to a
6
7
Marshall McLuhan coined this phrase
Weber Protestant Work Ethic
5
panel of top online bloggers that the “effect of the internet has not been all bad because it
enables subaltern forces that would otherwise by stifled.8” A candidate such as Ron Paul,
in the current 2008 nominating cycle, was able to raise $4.6 million in a day because of
grass-root organizing and the Internet. In the pre-Reform era politics, candidates such as
Ron Paul would not have comparable success.
Why Iowa?
Understanding the Reforms of the 1970’s contextualizes the environment, which
enables the modern Iowa Caucus system. Through understanding the changes in the
basic structure of Presidential elections one gains insight how a state that seems to hold
little traction in typical national politics became the focal point for the Presidential
election.
In 1913 the Iowa Legislature established a primary election for Presidential
nominees. Iowa had one primary on April 10, 1916, which was highly contentious and
declared as a mere appendage of the Progressive party (Horack. 176). After only 25% of
the state voted, it reverted back to a caucus system. The caucus system did not gain
national attention until 1968 when the lack of statewide reporting on both the Democrat
and Republican side became evident as problematic. The McGovern-Frasier
Commission would overhaul the system.
In 1972 the caucus gained national imminence; the New York Times ran a series of
articles outlining how non-primary states choose their delegates for conventions.
Democratic strategist Norma S. Matthews was co-chair of the George McGovern
campaign and helped craft the early January start for the Democratic caucus in Iowa.
McGovern finished second in the Iowa caucus, which provided momentum for him to
ultimately win the nomination in Miami.
Christopher Hull in his new book Grassroots Politics outlines a test for the
primary system to address the issue of whether or not New Hampshire serves a better
predictor of primary performance. His model shows that when controlling for New
Hampshire results and the indicators of the Exhibition Seasons, Iowa is not a statistically
significant predictor of overall primary performance (Hull.93). That being said, because
of New Hampshire’s impact on the primary winner, we cannot rule out the interplay
between Iowa and New Hampshire – perhaps Iowa is serving as a testing ground for
New Hampshire voters. Hull ultimately determines that “the First-in-the-Nation Caucus
matters to what happens in the First in-the-Nation Primary, even if how much is an open
question” (Hull. 97).
The nuts and bolts of the caucus:
In order to understand the caucus, on a peripheral level, the “crazy caucus math”
as I have dubbed it, is an integral part of the process. In order to be viable in a precinct a
candidate must have 15% of the number of supports in a room. After the first round, a
candidate may or may not be viable and then “realignment” takes place. People cajole
others to gain viability, including an “undecided section” if applicable. After the second
round the head of the caucus chair (elected by the county party) determines the numbers.
Each of Iowa’s nearly 1,978 precincts is given a set number of delegates. The
number of delegates that each candidate acquires is based a rounding system. The total
number of supporters for a given candidate, after realignment, is divided by the entire
number of people in a room then multiplied by the number of delegates given for a set
8
Event sponsored by UCDEMS on 11/13/07
6
precinct (also determined before hand). Then the rounding begins with the largest
number after the decimal place, any number larger than .5 is rounded up.
An example:
Precinct X has 4 delegates.
The Precinct has 150 people show up on caucus night.
A candidate needs 23 (22.5 rounded up) supporters for one delegate.
On Round One:
Edwards has 35 people
Clinton has 31 people
Obama has 34 people
Richardon has 14 people
Dodd has 11 people
Biden has 12 people
Undecided has 13 people
Only Edwards, Clinton, and Obama are viable so now realignment takes place.
On Round Two:
Edwards has 42 people
Clinton has 41 people
Obama has 41 people
Richardson has 21 people
Now if we take these numbers and divide them each by 15 and multiply by 4 we are
given these percentage points:
Edwards has 42 people = 1.12
Clinton has 41 people = 1.09
Obama has 40 people = 1.06
Richardson has 22 people .58
The second number after the decimal point is the first place we state. Richardson would
be the first one to round and he will get one delegate (rounding .58 up to 1). Second
highest number after the decimal point is Edwards with 1. Edwards will also get one
delegate (rounding 1.12 down to 1). The next highest number will be the .09 so Clinton
will get one delegate (1.09 down to 1). Lastly, Obama will also get one delegate
(rounding 1.06 down to 1).
Final delegate results:
Edwards has 42 people = 1.12 = 1 delegate
Clinton has 41 people = 1.09 = 1 delegate
Obama has 40 people = 1.06 = 1 delegate
Richardson has 22 people .58 = 1 delegate
Even though there was a large discrepancy between the number of people who supported,
lets say, Edwards and Richardson, in the end they get the same number of delegates.
After the delegates are awarded to a candidate caucus goers have the option of leaving or
can state and vote on who should be the delegates and voter on legislation. The delegates
chosen go on to regional conventions, then to county conventions, then to the state
convention, and then are ultimately selected for the Democratic National Convention in
Denver has a heavy weeding out process.
7
2008 Iowa Caucus: A Year to Remember
The 2008 caucus is unique because the Iowa Legislature passed a law that does
not require caucus goers to necessarily be registered. Thus, allowing people the option of
registering the day of for a caucus. Democrats lauded the legislation as enabling wider
popular involvement while Republicans resisted it. However, it has created an
atmosphere of massive distrust at the tenuous nature of the system where potential
spoilers could come in from out of time and register at the day of the caucus.
One example of the massive distrust this system creates: Hillary's campaign is
concerned that Obama is shipping in college students from Illinois and having them
caucus. Additionally, Obama's campaign is comprised of more youth voters and his
campaign is urging college students in Iowa to stay here over break to caucus. In
contrast, Clinton's supporters are comprised of a combination of first time caucus goers
and older people. Therefore "GOTC" ‘get out the caucus’ is a corner stone of their
campaign. Edward's is giving out a decidedly populist message and focuses on the plight
of the middle class. The second tier candidates 9such as Richardson, Dodd, and Biden are
attracting support because they engage in substantive debate in a way that the top tier
candidates, Obama, Clinton, and Edwards do not.
Yet, essential to the Iowa caucus is the atmosphere and mood that the caucus
incites. Iowa is a place where voters expect and demand a lot of contact with supports.
At a local even called "drinking liberally" one local Iowian reported having 188
interactions with presidential candidates, surrogates (supporters who speak on behalf of a
candidate), and campaign staff/volunteer events. Iowa, especially in the weeks leading
up to the caucus is brimming with opportunities to have small interactions with high-level
officials. For instance, one classic stop is the Veterans Hospital in Marshalltown, IA
where Madeline Albright spoke to a group of roughly 40 supporters. When Madeline
Albright spoke at the University of Chicago in 2006, it was a packed crowd in
International House where students were lining up to get in. Likewise, John Edward's and
Kevin Bacon had a joint concert/ speech together at the Ames High School for a small
group of supporters. This is true for all of the candidates who provide ample
opportunities for small, personal interactions with candidates.
When supporters do not have opportunities for direct interaction with candidates
they become disconcerted. Furthermore, Iowans do not want sound bite responses from
their candidates. It is impressive to see the thoughtful, nuanced answers candidates give
to supporters. When pressed on some of the most complex issues, such as ethanol
subsidies, Edwards, on December 16th 2007, (on one of his 15 schedules events in the
day) gave a multifaceted response, which reflected the concerns of silicone valley, the
issues of the market deployment and the challenges and potential rewards of ethanol.
This is not a response that can be fit into a 10 second sound bit and it is emblematic of
Iowans politics that seeks to go beyond the typical political discourse.
One example of this is the much-anticipated Des Moines Register endorsement.
This year they endorsed Hillary Clinton in a complex, detail rife editorial that brought her
into a direct narrative wit her top opponents and questioned her:
"In the Senate, she has earned a reputation as a workhorse who does not seek the limelight. She honed
knowledge of defense on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She has proactively served rural and
9
Using this term “2nd tier” is polemical at best. It is a term contrived by the media. The ardent supports of
their candidates would hotly contest such terminology.
8
urban New York and worked in the national interest, strengthening the Children’s Health Insurance
Program. Clinton is tough. Tested by rough politics and personal trials, she’s demonstrated strength,
10
resolve and resilience" (Des Moines Register, Editorial 12/15/07 ).
Iowans want details and will settle for nothing less. They do not want to be told who to
vote for or how to think and the large number of long time caucus goers who wisely side
on being "undecided" understand their agency and ability to woe candidates up until the
minute the caucus begins. Iowans have an ambivalent relationship to the East Coast
establishment that comes to visit a campaign. Big money is involved in many of the
leading candidates; although Edwards, McCain, and Dodd are receiving public financial
support which means at some point their funds will run out.
Iowans have been schooled on their sense of agency, which is further heightened
by the influx of people from throughout the world who come to take part in this process.
Many clever Iowans choose to remain 'undecided' until the very moment of the caucus.
Iowans are able to maintain their power as long as possible by remaining ‘undecided.’
Caucus night 2008:
I worked at a precinct in Ames, at Iowa State University. I was prepared for this
to be a hotbed of Obama support, but I did expect having to compete with actress Scarlet
Johanson who was there garnering up support for Obama. Though director Ron Howard
did stop by for a bit, the precinct was over run with Obama supporters and despite having
gone over the numbers several times, Clinton was suddenly not viable (15% determines
viability) on in this precinct.
From my perspective, 2 major things hindered Clinton's success in this precinct.
First, was the obvious manipulation of the system by Obama's campaign. In the form of
patronage where county leaders who supported Obama creat double standards where
Obama staffers were allowed to eat food while Hillary food was forced to leave. Many
of the caucus chairs were simultaneously Obama precinct captains so they would speak
"objectively" in one instance, and "on behalf of Obama in another." Without a doubt
Obama had additional students brought in to caucus. Our numbers for delegates were off
and many people noted they had never seen many of the caucus goers in their precincts.
Neither of these two things were in Hillary Clinton’s campaigns control. One
critique of Hillary’s infrastructure was that an over driven policy of getting numbers
"IDs" inflated our volunteers and often created precinct captains who were not fully
prepared for the job. While this is not the case across the board, in many precincts our
captains were not prepared to speak on behalf of a candidate. One of the problems with a
system focused on numbers instead of relationships is that the key local party officials
cultivated strong bonds with the Obama campaign and this had a trickle down effect.
Having many first time caucus goers also plagued our campaign, and while we offered
numerous caucus trainings we did not adequately prepare our supporters for the option of
us not being viable at all.11 Partially, because it was difficult in certain precincts for us to
not be viable given the numbers we were working with. However, the Obama campaign
10
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071215/NEWS/71215018
Hillary had a video “Caucusing is Easy” which shoes Bill Clinton exercises and Tom Vilsack dancing
and notes “exercising and dancing are hard . . caucusing is easy.” The reality is, caucusing is not east, and
Obama’s campaign seemed to train caucus goers much more effectively. That being said, Clinton and
Obama had very different demographics, and many Clinton supports might have been dissuaded from
attending the caucus if it appeared too cumbersome a task.
11
9
distorted these numbers and therefore we were not left with a cohesive strategy or
leadership for viability.
Lastly, the Des Moines Register poll was deeply flawed and used an un-realistic
sample size of independents and republicans. But, there is a self-fulfilling prophecy effect
of such polls where Obama had momentum (even if it was highly hyped).
One of the many things Clinton did well was hire talented, passionate, enthusastic
field organizers who did work their hardest to make strong relationships. The over
arching hierarchy did not always foster or support these talented field organizers or allow
them agency in the processes. The often top down structure of the campaign did not
work to our advantage in Iowa, a place of long standing local relationship. Very small
details, such as putting 41 cent stamps on postcards to be mailed locally, or even creating
door hangers not designed for the Iowa weather – too long and thin in contrast to the
sturdy design of other candidates.
The Iowa Caucus: To What Ends
The Democratic Party will leave Iowa in a mass exodus for New Hampshire,
Nevada, South Carolina and headquarters sprinkled throughout the nation. After
pumping 70 million dollars into the economy, Iowans can enjoy nights at home without
dozens of campaign phone calls and watch television in peace without endless television
advertisements. Celebrities, journalists, politicians, activists, and students from all around
the world will return to their Iowa free existence.
There is no doubt that the caucus system enables typically disenfranchised people
to be treated like celebrities and have the clout of top Washington officials. Yet, the issue
is precisely the a priori disenfranchised people. Instead of creating the lasting
infrastructure for jobs, sustainable development, or green technology every three years
the American people give a caucus. The crazy caucus math and the bizarre
circumstances of the deregulated caucus make the entire process more of crapshoot than
an election.
Understanding Iowa Culture:
Life should be hard in America. Our nation was founded on the protestant work
ethic12 or at least on the concept that people will work hard and reap the benefits of their
work. To understand how and why John Edward's message of "regaining the Middle
Class" and the divide between the "two Americas: one that does all the work and the
other that receives all the benefits" had gained traction in Iowa one must understand the
daily struggles of the majority of Iowans. My findings are not based on strict social
science studies or data, but rather on my one-on-one interactions at the homes of Iowans,
on the phone, in individual meetings, at community events, and throughout my time
working for Senator Clinton in her Ames, IA office.
Life is extremely hard for the majority of "middle class" folks in Iowa. They are
working class and have been working their entire lives to make a good living for
themselves and their families. Often, especially as people increase in age, they are left in
huge amount of debt due to personal illness and often forced into bankruptcy or to sell
their homes. One woman was in a car accident that drove her to mortgage her house, all
her assets and she became below the poverty line. She met a man who pulled her up and
now lives comfortably in a beautiful home with her children and cats.
12
Reference to Max Weber
10
I met another woman who was born in a poverty stricken family in Nebraska and
then worked her way to college at a USDA certified egg farm where maggots would
crawl on her arms. Yet, she made her way to college and lives in a half a million home
designed by her architect husband. The home is rife with an eight person hot tube, a
movie theater style screen, five bedrooms, four bathrooms, a tanning bed, and popcorn
machine. She is upset because a Hog plant has been allowed to move within a two mile
range of her home and she is worried it's emissions will devalue her home. She explained
to me that the hog producers are buying the city council and that she has worked hard her
entire life and believes the government should be there at every level to protect her. She
has never asked for "government handouts" or support of any kind and now wants an
honest and fair city council to judge fairly and accurately without getting kick backs from
hog produces.
The one trait that seems to characterize the Iowans I have met is their pride. They
do not want a government that feeds them. One woman living in a trailer, with poor
health conditions, bragged to me that as a single mother she never asks for government
support. Rather than accept help she worked two jobs and slept roughly four hours a day
for years and years. As she recanted this story to me she had a wide grin on her face. As
if she was so excited to tell me she could live in this country on her own.
I drive around Iowa with another young staffer from Idaho. He looks at me in
shock that I am appalled by the things I see. He tells me that what I am witnessing is the
reality for most of this nation. More than anything, Americans just want the ability to
dream. Americans want the ability to live their own dreams in the manner they see fit perhaps they want the freedom to dream. As I meet these disparate, kind, hard working
Iowa folk I question: why do they stay? I perceive their lives as difficult, especially with
the looming threat of one medical calamity potentially ruining their entire existence.
With a nation that has 47 million un-insured and those that are insured with often poor
and insufficient coverage the question for me is: why America? Why are we the 37th out
of 37th industrialized nation on healthcare?
It is just not healthcare, although it is of paramount concern, especially to seniors.
Education mars people in debts for decades. One of the co-workers from Senator
Clinton's Capitol Hill office attends excellent Trinity College in Dublin in his hometown
of Dublin nearly free of cost. Ames, IA is home to Iowa State a college that ranks 85th
for public universities and costs $17,000 for out of state tuition. A high number of
students are out of state. One college professor there explained to me the culture of debt
where out of state students come from small towns to Ames and want to splurge on offcampus housing and flashy cars because they believe they will meet their future spouse
while in college. Thus, instead of penny pinching, students spend and require debt but
seem not to care at all. And thus begins another generation of debt stricken American
beholden to the credit card companies and the mercy of lenders and debt collectors.
As the US dollar is at an all time low, Americans are consistently asking why
they can no longer live the way they used to. A Native American man asked former
Secretary of State, Madeline Albright (a Clinton surrogate) about why he used to be able
to buy an ample amount of groceries for six or seven dollars and now ten dollars hardly
buys a thing. Albright explained a complicated system involving globalization, foreign
affairs, and the need for creating new jobs in the 21st Century. Most homes here in Iowa
have windmills or grain refineries. And it is clear that we should have more of them.
11
The gas stations have gas laced with ethanol and I believe the economy would be helped
by renewed focus on ethanol.
More than anything it is clear that Americans failed to update our economy for the
21st Century. For this Democrats and Republicans, politicians and businessmen, leaders,
journalists, scholars, and every single American is to blame. The prosperous 90's did not
encourage people to make the lasting infrastructural changes to make Americans
prepared for a century of globalization and its exportation of jobs. We are all to blame
and the people in the heart of out nation are feeling it the most. The American dream
seems to be stifling the American reality. While stuck in a world of fantasy and ideals we
have failed to make our nation live up to his pragmatic purposes.13
For all the things George Bush will be remembered by, his failure to ask Americans,
anything, after 9/11 will be remembered as his greatest disservice to the current
generation. He had the opportunity for a New Deal or a Greater Society, a project of a
scope larger than sending a man to the moon - making America its own idealized society
on earth. Instead of asking for Americans to think critically and work to truly eradicate
the hate, poverty, and education inequalities in our nation he asked us to shop. As we
approach the third anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, in a 9th ward that is still in
shambles, we must wonder how anyone can believe in the American dream anymore.
And it does not take a tragedy of epic proportion to alter ones life. A woman recounted
how she slipped on a piece of ice and had to have brain surgery and now takes seizure
medicine for the rest of her life. She described her altered state "as her new reality."
The 2008 election more than anything seems a test between a hopeful America that
still believes change and progress is possible and a fearful America that wants to isolate
itself from the world. Just watch the disparity in the Democrat and Republican debates
and one feels as though they are truly watching two Americans. One of the top
Republicans issues is Immigration: building a fence and isolating America from the
world. One of the top Democrats issues: regaining America's moral stance in the world
and integrating ourselves with our global brethren. "Either its Earth for all, or hell from
most" (Harpers, June 2007). At one point do we shelf our dream so that we can maintain
a new and improved reality?
It is easy to say the dream is holding us down. Yet, it is extremely hard to truly
believe this. It has always been about a dream. If I do not have a dream then what do I
have? It is suppose to be about a nation with a higher calling yet how can we be the city
on the hill if the hill blows up in flames? Additionally, we cannot be the arrogant, bully
on the hill because then we certainly do not deserve the hill. We are something in
between, a city on the hill that is never entirely comfortable with our position but believes
in its validity nonetheless.
It is this ambivalence that allows the caucus to function, tenuously marked by a list
of unspoken rules: such that true Democrats and Republicans will show up to their
respective parties' caucuses. Nothing holds the democracy together, and I have told my
Benjamin Franklin "Its a Republic, Madam, but only if you keep it" more times that I
care to disclose. That being said, while I go around Iowa urging people to caucus I feel
like a salesman peddling a product. Citizenship should not be a commodity. Our people
ought to be dubious of anyone who tries to sell it. The media has taken the caucus away
13
Good example of this is the housing bubble; in attempts for “every American to be a land owner” we
created a vast network of sub-prime mortgages that ultimately hurt Americans.
12
from the American people as a public good and now treat it like a commodity that should
be on the free market.
In many ways the Iowa caucus represents the last American polis14. The polis
was so powerful in antiquity because you were publicly expressing your views to the
people around you. In a polis you are accountable in a way that is unmatched in our
modern democratic republic. It seems logical that democracy was founded in the polis
because in true system of government that is “for the people, by the people” the people
need to be accountable. The caucus is the expression of culpability par excellence – you
are in front of your friends and neighbors publicly vocalizing your opinion. If the old
adage holds true that one ought not to discuss religion or politics at a dinner party, then
the caucus is the ultimate rude activity. On caucus night, politics emerges out of the
private sphere (oikos) and into the public sphere. In an era of increased bio-politics, as
Foucault would note, where the body is the visceral locus of power 15 can politics ever
been made private?
Yet, typically, in a non-caucus atmosphere, politics remains private which raises
many questions for future avenues of research into why have we seen a decline in the
social networks. Putnam, in “Bowling Alone” argues that our social capital is declining
as the trend exemplified in bowling leagues; more Americans than ever are bowling –
however, they are bowling alone. Putnam has teamed up with the Kennedy School of
Government at Harvard to create the Saguaro Seminar. From their “Better Together
Report” they note on citizen’s impact:
Despite lackluster voting turnout in the 2000 national election, Americans clearly
wish for a democracy in which they have a meaningful say. Better Together
maintains that in a compassionate society, both voluntary action and government
social programs are essential; and that federal, state, and local governments’ must
consider the impact of their policies on family and community connections.
Political reform must include financial campaign limits, increased citizen access
to public spaces, an end to sprawl, government grants to harness the Internet for
civic ends, and real decision-making and budget responsibilities for local
communities.16
In a nation that grew too large for true civic voluntarism, the caucus is the last
remaining paradigm for civic engagement on a grassroots level. Some boast that the
Internet has the ability to re-engage Americans along the lines of civic participation. Yet
the Pew report on the Future of the Internet notes that 37% of participants do not believe
the Internet will improve politics in contrast to 33% who thought it would. When
contrasted with the high numbers of people who believe the Internet will help in other
sectors such as education and even in family lives the numbers for politics seem even
more staggering. While the Internet has the ability to change people’s relationship to
politics and ultimately increase civic participation, the Internet simultaneously alters the
14
The polis (plural, poleis) was the ancient Greek city-state. The word politics comes from this Greek
word.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:5iXfjTXk1H4J:ancienthistory.about.com/od/greeceancientgreece/g/p
olis.htm+definition+of+polis&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a
15
Foucault, Discipline and Punish
16
http://www.bettertogether.org/aboutthereport.htm
13
public/private distinction in a way that makes the paradigm of the caucus increasingly
relevant.
When one votes, it is an extremely private enterprise where anonymity is key, yet
we would need extremely advanced technology to have fully anonymous voting. Fully
anonymous voting hardly seems like a reality in the near future. Instead some system
where people have to log in with a form of valid credentials as cited in the Pew Report
seem likely. The Internet has the opportunity to create pockets of ‘virtual’ caucuses.
Using advanced technology or second life, people could create digital caucus
communities. Would this deteriorate from the human interaction of the caucus?. It is the
moments of sheer humanity that allow the caucus to sustain its existence. The virtues of
the caucus seem to be almost private in nature; as if the caucus fills a deep void and
longing for human interaction in an era where social dynamics are leaving people more
and more isolated. Iowa is not a place, which focuses on Internet movements; this may
be one of the reasons for Dean’s ultimately failed bid in Iowa. The Internet has the
potential to transform the caucus, but it will take place gradually.
Perhaps the true question of the caucus is: should a very public decision, such as
the future President of the United States of America be chosen in a setting that is more
apt for private understanding? Is the Iowa caucus best at fomenting relationships and
worst at picking future Presidents? Maybe the problem is with us, the social science types
who study Iowa. The media is to blame for creating this iconic vision of an Iowa caucus
that has an imminent control in the Presidential system. A sign of a nation in trouble is
when the last vestige of the marketplace of ideas involves a caucus system that while it
does provide a suitable venue for social interactions, hardly fufills the tenets laid out by
the McGovern Frasier Commission for increasing popular participation in the Presidential
nominating system. Americans ought to demand more than a deeply flawed Iowa caucus
system. However, the lack of a caucus would impact the social networks created by the
Iowa caucus. If that dies what will be next? Or rather, what other forms of American
society are already dead that the Iowa caucus is just disguising as true civic participation?
14
Acknowledgments:
Professor Dawson and his support, guidance, and knowledge.
Professor Hull for his insight into the caucus.
Center for the Study of the American Presidency and the guidance of the other
fellows.
All the staffers in the Hillary Clinton Ames and Des Moines Offices.
The people of Iowa who offered foreigners like myself a bit of hospitality.
Exstesive
Bibliography:
Bibliography
Newspaper Articles:
1) Cohen, Jon. August 8, 2007, The Washington Post
2) Graham, Bob. August 8, 2007. The Washington Post
3) Huffstutter, P.J. October 8, 2007. Los Angeles Times
4) Loth, Renee. August 16, 2007. The Boston Globe
5) MacGillis, June 7, 2007. Washington Post
6) Paulson, Amanda. March 16, 2007, Christian Science Monitor
Journal Articles:
Abramowitz, Alan I., Walter Stone, Ronald B. Rapoport, and Walter J. Stone. “Sex
and the Caucus Participant: The Gender Gap and Presidential Nominations”
American Journal of Political Science, Vol.34, No.3 (Aug 1990): 725-740
Adkins, Randall E. and Andrew J. Dowdle. “How Important is Early Organization to
Winning Presidential Nominations? An Analysis of Pre-Primary Campaign
Organization in the Post-Reform Era.” Conference paper, Midwest Political Science
Association, Chicago, Ill., 2001.
Adkins, Randall E. and Andrew J. Dowdle. “How Important Are Iowa and New
Hampshire to Winning Post-Reform Presidential Nominations?” Political Research
Quarterly 54, no. 2 (June 2001): 431-444.
Adkins, Randall E., Andrew J. Dowdle and Wayne P. Steger. “Before the
Primaries: Modeling Presidential Nomination Politics During the Exhibition
Season.” Conference paper, American Political Science Association Annual Meeting,
2002.
Broh, Anthony C. “Polls, Pols and Parties” The Journal of Politics, Vol.45, No. 3
(Aug 1983): 732-744
Busch, Andrew E. “New Features of the 2000 Presidential Nominating Process:
Republican Reforms, Front-Loading's Second Wind, and Early Voting.” In In Pursuit
15
of the White House 2000 – How We Choose Our Presidential Nominees, edited by
William G. Mayer. New York: Chatham House, 2000.
Cooper, Alexandra L. “Nominating Presidential Candidates: The Primary Season
Compared to Two Alternatives” Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 4. (Dec
2001): 771-793.
Haynes Audrey and Gurian Paul “Campaign Strategy in Presidential Primaries, 197688)” American Journal of Political Science, 37 no.1 (Feb 1993):335-341
Horack, F.E. “Primary Elections in Iowa” Proceedings of the American Political
Science Association.” (1910):175-186
Hull, Christopher C. “The Big Mo from 1980 to 2004: Is Technological “e-mentum’
Amplifying Key Events in Presidential Races?” Conference paper, Midwest Political
Science Association Annual Meeting, Panel 21-5: Defining Moments and Significant
Stories In the 2004 Presidential Campaign Cycle , Chicago, Illinois, April 7, 2005.
Norrander, Barbara. “Nomination Choices: Caucus and Primary Outcomes, 19761988.” American Journal of Political Science, 37: 343-364.
Stone, Walter J. “Party, Ideology, and the Lure of Victory: Iowa Activists and in the
1980 Prenomination Campaign.” Western Political Quarterly, 35:527-38.
Stone, Walter J. and Alan I. Abramowitz. “Winning May Not Be Everything, But It’s
More than We Thought.” American Political Science Review, 77 (1983): 945-956.
Stone, Walter J., and Ronald B. Rapoport. “Candidate Perception among Nomination
Activists: A New Look at the Moderation Hypothesis.” Journal of Politics 56 (1994):
1034-1052.
Stone, Walter J., Ronald B. Rapoport and Alan I. Abramowitz. “Candidate Support in
Presidential Nomination Campaigns: The Case of Iowa in 1984.” Journal of Politics
54 (1992): 1074-1097.
–––. “Presidential Nomination Politics in the Post-Reform Era.” Political Research
Quarterly 49, no. 4 (December 1996): 875-915.
Waldman, Paul “Political Discussions in Primary States.” Annals of the American
Academy of Political Science and Social Science, 572 (Nov 2000): 29-32
Books:
16
Abramowitz, Alan I. and Walter J. Stone. Nomination Politics: Party Activists and
Presidential Choice. New York: Praeger, 1984.
Aldrich, John H. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in
America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
Hull, Christopher C. Grassroots Politics. Stanford California: Stanford University
Press 2007
Norrander, Barbara. Super Tuesday. Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky
Polsby, Nelson W. Presidential Elections. New York: Free Press, 1980.
17