FAREWELL TO IOWA?

This week’s Iowa caucuses may well have been the last that lead off presidential voting,

at least in the Democratic Party. Loud objections to their first-contest-in-the-nation status have been out there for a long time. This year’s vote counting debacle may push them off the cliff. We see good reason for such a demise, but offer one caution we’ll get to shortly. History reminds of the need for being careful what you ask for sometimes.

We should point out some of the reasons Iowa acquired this position in the first place. New Hampshire has had the first primary spot since 1920. It even has a law mandating it

remain first.  Iowa, craving national political attention, designed its caucus so it’s not really a primary – no secret ballot, held at night over two or three hours, delegates awarded by a complicated alignment and realignment process. The momentum Jimmy Carter, for example, took

out of Iowa in 1976 encouraged candidates to practically move there in the year before the election. Barack  Obama, as we’ll get to, probably wouldn’t have been president without the gigantic push he got by winning Iowa in 2008. Over time, however, more people have realized how problematic Iowa’s first-in-the-process status is.

The Complaints

In this week’s caucus, entrance polls indicated  over 90 % of those participating were white. For a party that depends on black and brown votes, that’s a problem. Since Iowa often serves the function of winnowing the field and providing momentum for successful candidates, Iowa’s nearly all-white composition seems especially troubling. With similarly white New Hampshire next on the program, Iowa’s unrepresentativeness takes

Source: US Census Population Estimates 2018

on even greater significance. Several cycles ago, Democrats advanced more diverse Nevada and South Carolina on the schedule, but the out-sized influence of Iowa and New Hampshire remain. This year, for example, former Vice President Joe Biden’s poor showing in Iowa – and he may not do better in New Hampshire – leaves his candidacy totally dependent on winning South Carolina on February 29 and doing very well in Nevada a week earlier.

 

In the wake of Iowa this year we heard one national commentator suggest Democrats

start their primary campaign in Michigan. He argued  that state much better represents the kind of electorate a Democrat must attract in running for president. It has big cities with large minority group populations, suburbs, farming communities, and plenty of union members. The idea resonates with us, though we acknowledge we can only guess about how much different the results would have been, if at all.

A second complaint about Iowa has been the  structure of the caucus itself. Not everybody,

the argument goes, can take three hours on a week night for standing in lines and gathering in groups in high school and college gymnasiums. Without a doubt, the process limits participation. 

Finally, voters and political scientists have found the public nature of caucuses unnerving. Revealing one’s electoral choices before friends, neighbors, and strangers doesn’t comport with notions many Americans have about democracy. That characteristic may also depress participation.

We get the complaints about Iowa. They’re all valid. This week’s vote counting debacle may provide the impetus for moving Iowa to a later

spot on the calendar and perhaps entice the Iowa Democratic Party to scrap the caucus format for a primary.  All that is four or eight years down the road, depending on the outcome of this year’s general election and other factors. Right now, we doubt things will stay exactly the same.

The Obama Caveat

One bit of irony remains that no one should forget, especially given the complaints about Iowa’s demographics. The truth is that the boost Barack Obama got from Iowa’s nearly all-white electorate probably gave the United States its first president of color. In late 2007,

Obama & Clinton - the race for presidency 2008

Obama  trailed Hillary Clinton by 16 points in the polls in black-vote-rich South Carolina. Then Obama won a stunning victory in Iowa. He might not have pulled that off in a primary state (he lost to Clinton the next week in New Hampshire’s primary). Iowa’s caucus format puts a premium on field organization, something at which Obama’s campaign excelled. 

Because Obama won Iowa, black voters in South Carolina, previously skeptical of an African American’s chances of winning with white voters, changed their minds and rallied behind Obama.  He won the South Carolina primary by almost 30 points and never looked back. 

 

The demographic coin, therefore, has two sides. One wonders now if history might

repeat itself with former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Could his top-of-the-line showing in  Iowa (we won’t have the final results for another week) alleviate skepticism about the viability of an openly gay candidate who publicly expresses his affection for his husband? Time will tell but we can’t say it won’t happen.

Pete Bittgieg and Husband

Lots of reasons exist for getting rid of the Iowa caucuses as the first exercise in the presidential campaign process.  History, and maybe the present, counsel at least a measure of caution.   

 

                 

TRUMP’S SENATORS: STAYING TRUE NO MATTER WHAT

As the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump moves into its second week, little has occurred that challenges the conventional

wisdom it will end in an acquittal. Almost no cracks have appeared in Trump's wall of 53 loyal Republican senators. Polling shows the public wants testimony from

Mick Mulvaney

witnesses like White House Chief-of-Staff Mick Mulvaney, former National Security Advisor John Bolton, and State Secretary Mike Pompeo. The public also supports subpoenaing executive branch documents Trump ordered withheld.

Whether either occurs remains in doubt and depends on four Republicans joining 47 Democrats in voting for witnesses and documents.

The slavish devotion Republican senators show for Trump, quite frankly, stuns us and we debated the possible reasons. We can’t get into those 53 heads, but we can examine

possible explanations, given what we know about human nature and the current political environment. It seems likely different considerations motivate different senators, so we can’t paint with too broad a brush. Still, we have some ideas.

The Dark Side

Some Republican senators, like some Democratic senators, operate on raging ideological convictions. As for Trump’s supporting senators, we see their objectives rooted in troubling, dark motivations. They

have  seen Trump at his worst and like what they see. These senators will, therefore, do anything necessary for protecting him and the power he wields. Put bluntly, this group of senators likes, maybe even adores, Trump’s white nationalism and xenophobia. His  “good people on both sides"

response after the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally in August 2017 provided this group with confirmation that they had found their man.

Senators in this category no doubt see Trump’s potential conviction as an existential threat to their way of looking at the world. They need Trump in office for the support and legitimacy he gives their cause. They cannot tolerate anything that might take him out of his lofty position. These senators live in a dark, unredeemable world reflecting the worst in America, demonstrating that no matter this nation’s greatness, we aren’t a perfect people.

The Usual Suspects

Much of the attention in the debate over

witnesses and documents focuses on four or five  GOP “moderates” who might break from the team that Trump coaches and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell quarterbacks. Whenever a controversial, party-line dispute erupts, the media and some Democrats parade them around as “getable” – Republican senators

who might jump ship and vote against Supreme Court nominee or, in the impeachment trial, in favor of issuing subpoenas for witnesses and documents. Their names are so familiar now as to (almost) not need repeating here – Susan Collins of Maine, Utah’s Mitt Romney, Cory Gardner of Colorado, Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, and Tennessee’s Lamar Alexander. For all the noise and false hope they  generate, however, almost always they get on board and stick with the team. Nothing has happened yet in this saga suggesting otherwise though, as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer says, “Hope springs eternal.”

Laissez les Bon Temps Rouler 

United States Senator sounds like a good job.

It  pays $174,000 a year (median U.S. household income is about $62K), provides generous health care and retirement benefits, and offers world-wide travel opportunities. It also comes

with perks -- people return your phone calls, you appear on television a lot, you get called “Chairman” if you run a committee. It’s sometimes a springboard to the presidency. We won’t even get into all the  money – making opportunities, above board and otherwise. We assume it’s the best job many senators ever had or will have. No wonder they work so hard at getting re-elected.

We’re confident many of Trump’s senators fall into this category – men and women who’ve recognized how good things are and won’t do anything that might jeopardize keeping the office. We think these Republicans have made a calculation – a business decision – that remaining in the senate, as they so desperately want, requires sticking with Trump. They’ve seen Trump punish wayward souls with Tweetstorms, insults in the broadcast media, and, ultimately, primary opponents. 

                   

We suspect these senators act only tangentially for ideological reasons. Sure, one or two things – confirmation of right-wing federal judges, property rights, disdain for federal regulation – motivates some of them, but that’s often secondary.  We know they’ve forgotten traditional Republican fiscal responsibility because they accept Trump’s historical deficits. They’ve been silent in the face of his coziness with

Vladimir Putin and other human rights violators. They haven’t promoted democratic values by insisting on a fair impeachment trial in the senate they control. We wonder how much they value government with three co-equal branches, defined by a system of checks and balances.   

   

We also think it unlikely their motivation resides in dedication to or affection for Trump, or from respect for his intellect and policy acumen. Many senators reportedly shake their heads at his incompetence and ignorance of simple issues, while cringing at the difficulty he has with complex problems.

This cohort of senators – we don’t know its size – most fears losing their perks. Knowing how Trump treats those who stray, they can’t take the chance of putting daylight between themselves and the man in the White House. Having made their calculation, they sit through the trial, listen fretfully to the utterly persuasive case presented by the House managers, will vote for Trump’s acquittal, then return to their regularly scheduled lives of privilege. Yes, let the good times roll.