Rethinking the Caucuses
washingtonpost.com: Rethinking Iowa
I'm always pleased to see smarter people than me validate things that have been mulling around in my brain. Whenever I hear the typical rants about Iowa and New Hampshire, I've tended to take a cyncical laugh from it. Even when it was my guy doing the dissing of the Iowa Doves or the New Hampshire Independents. Yes, Iowa is more dovish than normal. Even Jack Kemp wanted out of that state in a Republican caucus! And yes, the New Hampshirites independent streak make them a rather unpredictable animal that even Al Gore had to sweat out in 2000.
My sense has been that these things balance out at some point, and skipping is allowed. I mean, even Bill Clinton skipped Iowa - as did everyone else in 1992 - as fave son Tom Harkin was a top-tier candidate back then.
But the bigger problem, as Beinart pinpoints it, is in the caucus system itself. Moreso than any Iowa peculiarities, the caucuses are just downright undemocratic and should be abolished outright. How ironic then, that onetime Iowa critic Howard Dean not only backtracked from his 2000 comments in his Presidential run .... but he's sticking to the recent flip-flop in his run for the DNC chairmanship.
Comments
Re: Harkin as a "top tier candidaye
In 1992, the Beltway media incessantly tried to split the Democratic field into two tiers, the "real candidates" (Clinton, Harkin, and Kerrey) and the "joke candidates" (Tsongas, Brown and Wilder). They imposed this little caste system long before a single vote was taken.
Well, Harkin bombed in glorious fashion, barely breaking double digits in NH and dropping out once he realized that his paleoliberalism wasn't selling any place west east of Dubuque or west of Council Bluffs.
Poor Bob Kerrey got Shrummed. The infamous one managed to turn a war hero and one of the most creative voices in the Democratic Party into an afterthought by foisting his usual chardonnay populism on him.
Meanwhile, Paul Tsongas managed to win promaries and caucuses in New Hampshire, Massachussetts, Rhode Island, Utah, Arizona, Delaware and Washington before Clinton's deeper pockets prevailed in places like Illinois and Michigan. Jerry Brown's proto-McCain indignation struck a nerve with a lot of folks, and he piled up a respectable number of delegates as well.
The moral of the story is that 1.) Tom Harkin is, has been and always will be overrated, and 2.) when the media tells you wo is the frontrunner, kindly tell them to pound sand.
Posted by: Peter S. | January 14, 2005 07:19 AM
Greg, you know I hate to argue with you, but is changing your mind and sticking with that change really deserve "flip-flop"?
I mean, you want people to have the flexibility to change their minds, and you don't want people changing their minds right back after say, losing the Iowa Caucuses. If not, then you end up with Bush or someone who doesn't have any particular conviction.
I think the Iowa Caucuses are silly and undemocratic, too. But if that's how Iowa wants to do it, then I'm going to pop some popcorn and watch the festivities.
Posted by: Nate | January 14, 2005 07:45 AM
I fail to see the "coherent rationale" for Dean's initial reversal ... other than "I might win."
Posted by: Greg Wythe | January 14, 2005 08:33 AM