Elitist Iowa: Good News For Republicans

National Review Online: Exclusive Structure Of Democratic Party’s Caucus Marginalizes Voters

(National Review Online)  This column was written by Mark Stricherz.

---

No liberal seems to like the Iowa caucus, or at least no one who isn’t an Iowa public official. Christopher Hitchens accused the caucus of being undemocratic, saying that its rules are a “fraud” and invite “Tammany tactics.” Dana Milbank compared the caucus to a freak show performed by political activists and media types rather than local citizens. Even three Iowa intellectuals in The New York Times criticized the states’ caucus as an affront to democracy, noting that local Democratic Party officials “shun public disclosure of voter preferences at their caucuses.”

Except for Milbank’s plaint that activists proliferate in the caucus, these criticisms are off base. The Democratic Party’s Iowa caucus isn’t really undemocratic. Its presidential candidates receive delegates based on the preferences of voters, not party hacks or media honchos. Sure, the party’s Iowa caucus is not based on the principle of one-man, one-vote. But neither are elections for the United States Senate and the presidency, and few criticize those as undemocratic.

No, the problem with the Democratic Party’s Iowa caucus is that its type of democracy is elitist. And in a party that at the presidential level has lost support from the masses, this is a problem indeed.

The party’s Iowa caucus, which debuted in 1972, was never meant to advance the aims of its blue-collar clientele. Its intellectual roots were in the New Left, the student-centered movement that began in the 1960s. While many members of the New Left endorsed the principle of one-man, one-vote, others put more stock in “participatory democracy.” In The Port Huron Statement, the founding document of Students for a Democratic Society, the group called for organizing political life on several principles. Among those was that “decision-making be seen positively, as the art of collectively creating an acceptable pattern of social relations;” “politics has the function of bringing people out of isolation and into community ...;” and the political order should serve to clarify problems in a way instrumental to their solution; it should provide outlets for the expression of personal grievance and aspiration …” Put crudely, the vision animating these principles was more guys-in-togas-deliberating-in-the-forum than the masses-marching-in-torchlight-parades-on-the-eve-of-the-election.

The main way in which the caucus is elitist is the amount and time and effort it requires of voters. Participants can not simply show up and vote. They must spend at least an hour and often several hours sitting through a meeting before finally declaring their support for a candidate.

Another way in which the caucus is elitist is that the caucus is a night-time-only affair. Unlike primaries, when voters can cast their ballots from dawn to dusk, the Iowa caucus occurs only in the evening. So long young mothers and second-shifters.

The consequences of these rules and structure are substantial.

In terms of demographics, the Democratic Party’s Iowa caucus in effect marginalizes working class and less educated voters. Four years ago, almost three-fifths of caucus-goers (58 percent) had earned a four-year college degree or more. That might not sound like a high figure, but comparatively speaking it is. In the general election, only two-fifths (42 percent) of all voters had done so.

Well-educated people might not be different from you and me, but they are from their less-educated counterparts in terms of policy preferences. Take the issue of abortion. According to Voter News Service data from the 2000 election, a slight majority (52) of whites with high school diplomas or less believed that most abortions should be illegal. By contrast, only 37 percent of whites with college and postgraduate degrees said they favored the same.

It’s true that cultural conservatives have not always been marginalized in the party’s Iowa caucus. As late as 1976, Catholics were a key constituency in the caucuses; it was their support that enabled Jimmy Carter, who whispered to one woman that he would support a national law to extend many legal protections to unborn infants, to win more delegates than any other candidate, a key victory on his path to the nomination.

But that was three decades ago. Culturally conservative Democrats are now a spectral presence in the Iowa caucuses. Their ranks have been filled, almost entirely, by social liberals. Here’s as good example as any. Hillary Clinton last month attacked Barack Obama for voting “present” when abortion-rights bills were under consideration, rather than the preferred support for them.

This is bad news for Democrats. As I argued earlier, in almost every general election since 1972, the national party’s association with abortion, as well as homosexuality, has damaged its nominee politically. The caucuses force Democrats to move to the left on cultural issues, where the party is weakest, and prevents them from emphasizing their main strength, economic issues.

Of course, the elite nature of the party’s Iowa caucuses is good news for Republicans. Which is perhaps why conservatives criticize them so rarely.

[taddles-2009]

"Well-educated people might not be different from you and me"

Of course because your MA from Chicago makes you one of those "under-educated blue collar" types that you are so bravely championing. Typical hor$hit comment from a typical $hit eating repuubliscum a$$hole.

[macusweil]

"This is bad news for Democrats. As I argued earlier, in almost every general election since 1972, the national party%u2019s association with abortion, as well as homosexuality, has damaged its nominee politically."

Oh really?

NRO believes this is true even though most Americans oppose forced pregnancy and all forms of discrimination. The average US voter supports a woman''s right to choose and favors civil rights for *** including same *** unions.

[quatrops]

You might be a progressive, taddles, but you have the potty-mouth of the anally-fixated neo-cons. Please, clean it up. It detracts from your on-target criticism of the NRO.

[cs4466]

NRO: America''s Premier Site for Biased News, right wing propoganda, and outright bigotry.

Next.

[mcvet]

It''s outright funny watching these Nazi''s trying so hard to find something, anything, they can use as a wedge issue. If they can''t divide and find something like the "Marriage Amendment" this time they are HISTORY and they know it. The longer it goes the more desperate they get. Sieg Heil Bush!!

[random_radar]

Oh, come on, the Democrats have a great process for fielding quality presidential candidates. In the last 27 years they have produced...one who got elected.

Don''t let anyone tell you that Democratic candidates don''t appeal to mainstream Americans! That ONE successful candidate in the last 27 years proves the critics wrong.

Republicans are the losers! They barely got anyone elected. The Supreme Court had to help them.

Democrats: the power of ONE!

[idlepugilist]

Funny how Mark Stricherz tries so desparately to drag Democrats down into the arrogant repugnancy of righteous elitism which Republicans have never ceased wallowing in. The National Rightwing Obituary never fails to dream up drivel that is worthy of the National Enquirer, only adorned with their special brand of adverbjectives conjured up to frame the Democratic Party in a toilet seat. Nice work, Mark, you deserve a Peabody. And while you''re re-toolng another tired angle, actual Americans will be electing a Democrat as the next President.

[joyous88]

NRO is exactly one of the reasoins we have a criminal like bush in the white house, and this piece is just another one of their mind-bending propaganda items designed promote another religious bigot nut case into the white house this time.

Haven''t we had enough of the mindless sheep from the religious right?

[p-syrus]

The main way in which the caucus is elitist is the amount and time and effort it requires of voters.

------

God forbid that in a Democracy the citizens should actually be required to have some sort of actual KNOWLEDGE relevant to the decisions they are called upon to make.

What? Spouting "talking points" and voting the "party line" is insufficient to qualify as public political participation?

Seems to me to be reasonable to require a little "time & effort" from the citizenry in order to maintain a functioning democracy. Haven''t noticed that nationalized media politics has produced much other than acrimonious BIG MONEY campaigns, partisan politics, & the entrenchment of a wealthy corporatocracy.

I guess that sort of reactionary thinking qualifies me as some sort of "nasty ol'' elitist".

[downsteamjim]

Poor choice for a title. The article is 90% about the Democrat Party.

Since when is support for ga*y rights elitist? Equal rights is elitist?

[logicanada]

Just finished watching Obama win the Iowa caucus.The dems had twice the turnout than the repubs.
I guess that blows all kinds of holes in this writers story and half of the comments here. LOL

[brianbwb-2009]

"Sure, the party%u2019s Iowa caucus is not based on the principle of one-man, one-vote. But neither are elections for the United States Senate and the presidency, and few criticize those as undemocratic."

Wrong, blue nose. Many have complained about the electoral college, and all the other tricks used to maintain an undemocratic hold on the government, including very loud calls to abolish the electoral college system. In addition, the fact that the majority of eligible voters don''t even vote is indicative of dissatisfaction with the system, (and not laziness, as the supporters of corruption would have everyone believe) as they feel the rigging nullifies their votes anyway, or only allows two corrupt candidates, both of whom are completely out of touch with the aspirations of Americans.

The problem is that the writer is one of those who intentionally ignores such calls, pretending they don''t exist. As a supporter of government corruption, it would be in his interest to extol the virtues of vote rigging, rezoning, the electoral college, primaries, and other tricks of political corruption that give the lie to the concept of "American democracy".

[rowdytexan2]

Now this is hilarious, this guy calling the democratic caucus an elitest process! When the republicans have had the market on eliteism for YEARS!

However, I''m not sure about the bargaining and to''ing and fro''ing of this caucus. I think a person should be able to go and cast their vote and go home. There are many who have their minds made up, then go and be swayed at the last minute to cast a not well thought out vote.

This is just the fist skirmish in a long process. I hope that the battle will wage on, and that we''ll see a good turn out in ALL states.

[clestes-2009]

Leave it to the NRO to say that the massive voter turnout for the democrats, which was twice the voter turnout for the rep is somehow a victory for the reps!

They are getting so desperate that they are babbling like fools. Of course they always did, but before they at least tried to make it sound good on the surface. But this is ridiculous!!

The rep party is divided, dispirited and falling into complete shambles. Each candidate carries a small portion of the rep voters, but NONE of them carry a majority, let alone the independants.

What a bunch of tripe!

[Razzl]

The caucus system is rotten for both parties, especially when it can be manipulated by non-party members, and the low turnouts for both parties reflect that it''s a bad system as a whole, but it''s interesting that in attempting to dredge up the old right-wing bogeyman of the "new left" Stricherz has reminded us of how brilliant that movement could be in its best moments, constructing a social philosophy that provides a morally acceptable justification for direct democracy. Conservatives are the ones who are always complaining about efforts to make voting as simple as "show up and leave" without any effort involved, so for Stricherz to call for that is just reaching for something to make his comment about the "new left" sound like a bash.

As for abortion, Stricherz has always been wrong that abortion hurts the Democrats. A clear majority of the American public believes in abortion rights and the Democrats reflect that, so it can''t be a liability except among conservatives who weren''t going to vote Democratic anyway. Keeping the female voters that it must keep is always more important to the Democrats than trying to lure conservative voters it isn''t likely to get anyway...

[tejasdemo]

Lol. Just a pathetic bunch of nonsense.

[yankeerebel7]

Great article...looks like you really touched a nerve with this comments. Democrats aren''t huge fans of democracy...I think many people already understood this.

[clovisbuford]

Great spin on the part of the neo con rag . The facts are in a state with 30%Rep,31% dem,38% undeclared , twice as many voters chose to participate in the democratic primary, 114,00 voted in the republican primary , 224,000 on the Dem side, Those elitist dems got a lot more participation out of independents than rebulicans did and a lot more dems showed up.Spin away,bad policies harmful to the working class, the USA, and poor candidates are going to send the republicans down in flames.

[kansas1946]

LOL. Mark Stricherz? Does NRO actually pay this guy. I want a job that I can just ramble on and spew out a bunch of nonsense and get paid. Poor Republicans.