In a couple hours, someone will come in first in the Iowa Caucuses, and the news media & everyone else will start analyzing, prognosticating, and trying to determine what it all means. Since there is no primary contest this time on the Democratic side, the Democratic party is thankfully spared from much of the craziness & stupidity of media surrogates & blowhard pundits who are about as useful as a psychic hotline.
What won't be questioned (and probably won't be questioned anytime soon) is the structure of a Presidential nominating system that all but says the 0.9% of the American population in Iowa has a God given right to go first in nominating a Presidential candidate, with all the influence that entails. And if the people of any other state should dare to want to go before Iowa or New Hampshire, both states resort to ridiculous measures & threats to stay first, with both political parties being complicit in helping to keep the status quo.
So I'm all ears if someone wants to give me a good reason as to why Iowa should be first. Shouldn't some of the other 49 states get a chance to be "First in the Nation" every now & again?
From Ezra Klein's column, where he interviews David Redlawsk, a political scientist at Rutgers University and co-author of “Why Iowa?":
Ezra Klein: Iowa is not a rich state. It’s not a big state. It’s not a traditionally powerful state. So how did it get the enormous gift of kicking off the presidential primary process year after year after year?
David Redlawsk: By accident, is the answer. It’s sort of a funny story. In 1972, the revised Democratic rules coming out of the 1968 debacle required that notice be given of caucuses and primaries that would select party delegates. Prior to that, party bosses could schedule primaries without telling anyone. But the new rules required a 30-day requirement. Iowa’s system has four parts — the caucus, then the county convention, then the congressional district conventions, then the state conventions — so, to give a 30-day notice for all of them, Iowa had to start advertising early.
The second part, the state convention, is normally held in June. In 1972, they looked and found there were no available hotel rooms in Des Moines on the planned weekend. So they pushed the convention back. And that meant they had to push the caucuses back. And that’s how they ended up in January, in front of New Hampshire. It was not a plan, and in 1972, it made no difference. Edmund Muskie spent about a day there. But in 1976, Jimmy Carter’s campaign noticed Iowa was first and decided to invest some time. He ultimately came in second to uncommitted, but his win got him attention, and ultimately helped him get to the White House.
The usual defense of Iowa & New Hampshire's status of going first is that both states allow for better retail politics (
i.e. candidates getting up close & personal with voters), and challengers with less funds can be competitive in both states' media markets. In fact, proponents of Iowa's "
First in the Nation" status also like to paint an almost folksy, wistful picture of Norman
Rockefeller Rockwell Americana myth where the voters take things "
very seriously" (
with the implication being that citizens in other states wouldn't be as serious about it), and on election day they trot down (
or ride a campaign's paid transportation) to the caucus sites to do their civic duty.
However, I've never gotten a really good answer as to why states like New Mexico, West Virginia, etc. wouldn't allow for exactly the same thing? Pray tell why two states that are older, whiter, and more rural than the country as a whole should have so much influence on the nominating process every Presidential election cycle?
From Michael Crowley at Time's Swampland:
With every passing decade, Iowa’s electoral character grows more out of step with the reality of the United States. Iowa is an unusually homogenous — that is, white — and rural state in an increasingly diverse and urban nation. And it’s long been a custom of presidential politics to see the candidates extol the virtues of expensive farm and ethanol subsidies with precious little economic rationale.
There is really no good objective reason for Iowa & New Hampshire to ALWAYS go first except the tradition of it, and relying on "
well that's the way it's always been" for an argument doesn't cut it (especially since it's not true). And let's be honest, New Hampshire & Iowa aren't fighting tooth & nail to keep their status to honor a tradition. They're doing it to protect the influence each state gains, as well as the tourism & media dollars that come into their states every four years.
The only reason Iowa & New Hampshire get to go first is that no one in a position to do anything about it in either party has the guts to stick their neck out and change the process, because the people in a position to do something about it usually want to run for President one day themselves & don't want to screw up their chances if New Hampshire or Iowa are still "First in the Nation."