It’s not surprising that being first thrusts the
Iowa Caucus onto a towering public stage with extraordinary public
interest. But is all the attention warranted? Critics have argued that Iowa
does not mimic the country’s demographics well. It's a small, mid-western state, which is primarily rural and predominantly white. Allowing Iowa to go first, they argue, skews
results, preemptively damaging the chances of candidates who could do well at the national
level.
And if you look at Iowa’s track record in making predictions about the
presidential race, it does not improve the argument for Iowa’s
first-in-the-nation status. Iowa has a reputation for picking losers when it
comes to the presidential race (with a few exceptions, Jimmy Carter in 1977 and
the current president in 2000 and 2004). In particular, the caucus has been a notoriously unreliable guide
to the outcome of the Democratic primary process. New Hampshire is well acknowledged
to be better when it comes to the picking winners.
In this primary season the timing of the
primaries became a hotly contested issue, with bigger states wanting to
hold their primaries before Iowa’s, such as Florida, New Mexico and South
Carolina. Yet in a nod to tradition, Iowa remains first. The state will hold
its elections on January 3.
So why Iowa?
In an interview, Christopher Hull took up
this question with John Miller of the National Review. In his recently released book,
Grassroots Rules, Hull compares the impact of Iowa and New Hampshire on the
primary nomination and the presidency. He argues that Iowa’s first state
status is well deserved because of the unique format of its caucus to
convention system. (For those who are not familiar with how it works: Iowa's
caucus involves party sympathizers meeting in schools, homes and other
locations to debate their choices, and arrive at a consensus to declare support for a candidate. After this is a statewide
tally is used to determine the allocation of delegates to each candidate for
the party's convention.)
Hull makes the point that the caucus encourages "retail
politics" and real debate on the issues. It forces candidates to organize and
build grassroots coalitions. In putting a high premium on the grassroots
networks, Iowa seems to amplify the impact of the internet. Hull also finds
that the caucus limits the impact of negative campaigning and the influence of
advertising dollars. Perhaps the most startling conclusion in the book is that
increased television spending in Iowa seems to harm candidate’s chances
rather than improving them, keeping other factors constant (time spent
canvassing in the state, press coverage, campaign contributions, internet spending,
etc).
Even if Iowa does not pick winners, in Hull’s view, the state performs an important function by weeding out losers (Steve Forbes in 2000, for instance) and bringing the spotlight on candidates who canvass well, can get their message across, and are therefore electable. Of course, other states could mimic Iowa’s caucus, and according to Hull that would be good for democracy in America. But as long as that is not the case, it appears that Iowa has earned its right to be first.
Comments