Pete Buttigieg: First to the Post in Iowa & the BIG WINNER

Big winner

On one hand, a candidate and his (in this case) supporters declaring a victory in the Iowa caucus is like saying that your horse won a race by nosing-out the closest contender at the first pole. Nice, but the race has a long way to go, and the other horses are still running hard and expect to close the gap.

Bernie Sanders claims that he received the most votes (I've seen no press reports to confirm that), but this is the thinking that brought us President Al Gore and President Hillary Clinton--oh, wait, that's not how the system works (disliked it as one may). Neither does the Iowa caucus work as a candidate plebiscite (although that's the way its portrayed). Iowa Democrats and Republicans choose delegates to go on to county conventions and then to the state convention, which then selects delegates to the national convention. Indeed, the horse race isn't even over yet in Iowa! (But the media hates to have to deal with subtlety.)

The "winner" by the official count is Pete Buttigieg, by a whisker over Sanders. But in the larger sense, this outcome (for all the fuss about the speed of learning the results) proves a huge win for Buttigieg and a real political earthquake. He just beat (to the post, as I said) three sitting Senators and a former Vice-President. Sanders, his closest rival, has been in Congress since 1991 and campaigning for the nomination since 2015. Sanders has a lifetime--a long lifetime at 78 years of age--in politics and a committed core of supporters. Indeed, Sanders is more a prophet (of democratic socialism) than he is a politician. (On this distinction, see this post that channels Garry Wills on the topic.) One even discerns that Sanders has more faithful than he does supporters. And, of course, Biden, too, at 77 years of age and decades in the Senate (1977-2009) and eight years as vice-president, has the greatest name recognition, and he's still the leader in national polls (which count for nothing in this process except as another form of bragging rights). Yet, Biden finished a distant fourth. Senator Klobuchar from neighboring Minnesota finished a distant fifth. And Elizebeth Warren, from Massachusetts, which Dems seem to love (Kerry, Dukakis, and--a winner by a whisker--JFK (thank you, Mayor Daley)) finished about 8 percentage points (with less than half the delegates) behind the leaders Buttigieg and Sanders (who essentially tied in delegates).

And this is not to mention those who either didn't get out of the gate or who scratched from the race completely. How in the heck did Buttigieg, whom almost no Iowans had ever heard of before 2019 (or even 2020) get to the top over such well-known and well-funded rivals? Name recognition, piles of cash, and long-standing connections usually carry the day.

Let me quote from Storm Lake Times (Iowa) newspaper editor Art Cullen, who wrote in the Washington Post about Buttigieg's perhaps not-so-surprising success in Iowa:

Pete Buttigieg surged from nowhere to the top of Iowa’s caucus race, fair and square, by working places most candidates forgot or wrote off.
In late January, the former mayor of South Bend, Ind., took his rural Rust Belt revival message to places like Orange City, Iowa, a place where books about homosexuality had been burned. He drew a crowd of more than 200 in that deep-red town of 6,000 in a county that voted 6 to 1 for Donald Trump. They had seldom so much as seen a Democrat before. 

Mayor Pete stumped Storm Lake, my town of about 10,500, four times. He twice called me for interviews, in which he candidly discussed his views on race and owned the actions of South Bend’s police department. He talked about how immigrants had revitalized both his Indiana town and Storm Lake. About how agriculture could lead the way out of our climate crisis by capturing carbon. About how we can treat each other with decency. 

That’s how you win Iowa. You show up. You understand the issues and you press the flesh in 99 counties. You meet real people and hear about real concerns (not that much about impeachment). And then you organize.

The horse race is far from over, but this 38-year-old from South Bend may yet pull off an upset over his more established rivals. The Iowa Democrat Caucus gave us the first woman to receive a major party nomination (and winner of the popular votes for president, the participant's trophy) and it gave us our first African-American nominee and president. It may prove to have been the first marker for our youngest president (among his many other potential firsts). Wow!

Two Modest Propositions About Caucuses & Elections (and Iowa)

Iowans participating directly in politics. Messy, but that's sometimes how democracy works

In light of the Iowa Democrat Caucus last night--the results of which we don’t know as I write this--let me make a couple of observations that should prove less radical than Jonathan Swift’s “modest proposal” but that may upset you. I only ask that you forebear judgment until I make my case. 

But first, the elephant in the room: the lack of a final result last night and into Tuesday as I write this in the early afternoon. To this situation, I must say, “So what?” I know, I know.  I, too watched last night in anticipation of results, but I went to bed without a result. I slept soundly. I learned in the first election that I recall, Nixon-Kennedy in 1960, that despite my parents sending me to bed with the result still in doubt, the result would come without me and I’d find out soon enough to go to school and carry on with life. So, now, too. The glitch or glitches are unfortunate, but not very important. Yes, I thought Wolff Blitzer was going to have a meltdown, he kept murmuring “in 2016 we had the results by now.” The reporters and politicos used the opportunity to bad-mouth the caucuses for various reasons (more on that below). All the candidates declared victory and moved on. Their supporters will get on with their campaigns and going about their lives. We have every reason to believe that life, the campaign, and the news cycle (“all hail the News Cycle!”) will go on. We’ll get the results and will have every reason to believe that (in part) because of the time and delay that the reported results are accurate. (If not, then a whole lot more than the Iowa Caucus has big problems.) The whole episode has been a reminder of the American infatuation with instant gratification and how the demands of news organizations have come increasingly to dictate the conduct of our electoral system. Now to my modest propositions. 

1. We should expand the caucus and delegate system of party candidate selection. 
2. Voting is the least important--albeit essential--element of a democratic system. 

Let me explain these heretical propositions before your hair catches on fire. 

 First, about voting. In a democratic system going back to the ancient Greeks, the essence of a democratic system is decision-making by means of speech in which all stakeholders have a right to express their opinions should they choose to do so. As problems arise in a polity, responses are considered by collections of individuals who express their knowledge of relevant facts and share their opinions based upon those facts. In a perfect environment, all of the relevant facts are available to the stakeholder-decisionmakers, and they can express their opinions freely and fully; i.e., subject to neither necessity or coercion. Persuasion is the order of the day. But persuasion isn’t a one-way street; the mode of persuasion occurs with the dialectic of dialogue--or perhaps more accurately, multi-logue. Only after all perspectives and options have received a fair hearing that will winnow-out undesirable options and merge related options, will the decision-makers reach a decision about any action to undertake. And, the best (rational and fair) way to reach a decision is via a vote. This serves to ratify a decision, to make it conclusive, rational (at least in some measure), and legitimate (all will accept it as based on the perception of fairness and rationality). 

Let me hasten to note that I realize that the description of the decision-making system that I set forth above is at once both eutopian and utopian--both good and yet ideal beyond the reach of mortal humans. But the goal should be to approach the ideal. In modern mass democracies, we tend to be satisfied by providing the mass of the decision-makers, the electorate of eligible voters, with candidates and decisions that have been framed by elites (normally working through established institutions). These decisions (in the U.S.) tend to present voters with a binary choice. The key ingredient of democracy is reduced to a simple mark on a ballot for Candidate A or Candidate B. Sometimes, as in a primary election, there may be more than two candidates (or only one), but the principle of minimizing the expression of a decision-making choice reduces speech to the simplest possible expression. All of this may be necessary at the national and state-wide level, but why do we always want to push the system to the lowest common denominator? Why do we keep pushing towards plebiscites? Also, as you consider this, you realize what hooey any talk of a “mandate” is in a presidential election, which is most often a simple binary choice with occasional noteworthy third-party distractions from time-to-time; e.g., Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, George Wallace.  

So what does any of this about the limited (but essential) role of voting have to do with keeping, let alone expanding, the caucus system? Here I must admit that I’m an NRI (non-resident Iowan), having spent about 55 of my 66 years growing up and then raising our family in Iowa. I’ve participated in both Republican and Democratic caucuses and conventions. (I’ll save my confession of a misspent youth for another time.) Not having resided in Iowa full-time since 2012 and now in Brooklyn, I also have some outsider perspective also. In my experience (reinforced by press reporting this year), Iowans take the caucus system and their place in the nominating system very seriously. It’s like voluntary jury duty--it’s a pain in the rear for most folks, but if you’re going to do your civic duty, you’re going to try to do it right. (My experience with about 30 jury trials over more than three decades has informed my respect for most jurors.) Especially this year, with the abdication by the (Republican) Senate of its role in defending the Constitutional order in the face of an autocratic president, Democrats in Iowa have been especially concerned to select a winning, qualified presidential nominee. We don’t know who will prove the most popular choice yet, and opinions varied greatly, but make no mistake that the responsibility was taken very seriously by Iowa Democrats. And make no mistake, while Iowa isn’t the closest match to the national demographic picture, its track record in selecting Democratic nominees is exceptional. In 2000, Iowans preferred Al Gore, winner of the popular vote in 2000. They preferred the first woman nominated for president by a major party and the winner of the popular vote in 2016, Hillary Clinton. (Yes, yes, we know that winning the popular vote isn’t worth a warm buck of spit, but for that’s not the fault of Iowa Democrats.) They preferred John Kerry, the eventual nominee in 2004, and they preferred (and provided lift-off horsepower) to the first African-American nominee and president, Barack Obama, in 2008 and 2012. So remind me again why you believe the Iowa Democrat caucus is so off-kilter? 

Ah, yes, the caucus is not an election, and so the participation rate is much lower than would expect if we asked Democrats to only fill out a ballot at some point in the nominating process. This assertion is undoubtedly accurate. This way, perhaps via a regional primary, we could by-pass all the neighborhood discussions and maximize TV advertising (such an effective medium of one-way communication) and rely on the totally reliable--but for Russian bots and doctored tapes and conspiracy theories--social media platforms. In other words, Iowa (along with New Hampshire) emphasizes retail politics. Think how much better democracy would be if we all candidates would hold only Trumpeque “rallies” consisting only of the faithful. No messy questions (and, yes, candidates receive some really whacky questions in the coffee and handshakes systems of Iowa and New Hampshire). An only primary election system would be so much easier and lucrative for campaign professionals and media consultants. People (let’s not call them citizens) wouldn’t have to waste their precious time talking directly to candidates and neighbors. They could simply sit at home and have only the most wholesome, honest, and accurate information fed to them by their televisions and computers. That many--perhaps most--people would prefer this does not negate my point. The encouragement of political laziness should not be the goal of a republican democracy.

And in selecting the nominees for office, why shouldn’t the faithful of the political parties have the greatest say? That interlopers, like Trump among the Republicans and Sanders among Democrats, have done quite well in party contests doesn’t negate this argument. (Trump most definitely; the Sanders effect yielded a mixed record in 2016 and remains an open question in the present election.) Some argue that the party faithful tend to be more extreme in their views, toward the left (Democrats) and the right (Republicans), but this largely because of the political polarization that we’re currently experiencing. And even in Iowa this year, the final results, as well as ancillary polling, will reveal that defeating Trump is more important than the candidacy of any particular individual. When newcomers or minorities gain control of presidential nominations, the results have proven disastrous: Goldwater (GOP 1964), McGovern (Dem 1972), and Trump (GOP 2016). (The admitted exception is Mondale (Dem 1984), who had the misfortune of encountering the popular Reagan with the economy in an upswing while Democrats were continuing to wander in the wilderness seeking their identity.) While I’m not advocating a return to the smoke-filled rooms, I am arguing that the initial decisions be left to those committed to the party and what it stands for. This is an ever-changing and relatively self-selecting elite that should be perfectly consistent with democratic equality. And, returning to my point about the relative unimportance of voting (necessary but not sufficient for a democratic system), the more self-selective caucus system promotes speech, the political conversations that are the taproot of a realized democracy. Any change we make in our electoral system should emphasize real political communication at the grassroots level. 

So two cheers for the Iowa caucus system! It’s far from perfect, but I don’t see a better alternative.