The Iowa Myth

Allow myself to introduce...myself.

I'm Tom Schaller, a political scientist who writes guest columns on American politics for the various national newspapers, online magazines, etc. (Markos has linked some of these, below.)

As I wander about Iowa the next four days, Markos has asked me to submit my thoughts, analyses and experiences.

Now, as a professor, I couldn't help but do a little homework before heading to the airport for my Friday noon flight to Des Moines. So I have taken the liberty of posting a pre-trip Iowa political backgrounder. With apologies for the length and a few indulgences, and many thanks again to Markos for the honor of blogging to the thoughtful dKos readership, here goes...

Let's begin by debunking the conventional wisdom about Iowa: The truth is, in terms of its caucus history, Iowa's importance is overstated.

On one hand, an Iowa loss (or no-show) is no disqualifier. The three previous presidents all lost Iowa -- Reagan in 1980 (to Bush41), Bush41 in 1988 (to Dole and Robertson), and Clinton in 1992 (to Harkin) -- on their way to capturing the White House. To be fair, 1992 was highly unusual, because neither Clinton nor the other Democratic contenders really made an effort, given that everyone knew Senator Harkin was a lock to win his home state.

On the other hand, neither is an Iowa win the first step on a clear path to the nomination. Ironically, what often erases Iowa's ability to either cancel or catapult candidates is the very next step: New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary the following week. And so Bush43 won IA in 2000, then got pummeled by McCain in NH the next week; Dole and Robertson beat Bush41 in 1988, only to watch Gov. John Sununu revive Pappy's political career in NH; Bush41 beat Reagan in Iowa in `80, but lost his "big mo" in NH only a week later.

In short, those who lose Iowa are hardly doomed, and those who win Iowa are hardly destined. At least in terms of the official winners and losers, Iowa simply isn't predictive. "Official" is the operative word, of course, because "winning" is really judged by broader standards, most notably the responses by the media, donors and citizens. Still, the most famous case of Iowan impact remains Carter's surprising rise to prominence in '76. That was 28 years ago.

The presidential nomination process should not be about providing economic impact to this state or that, or stoking the nostalgia of maudlin columnists who wax eloquently about a process and outcome that have an importance more imagined than real. I'm one vote for wresting the first-in-the-nation role away from Iowans, however dedicated and serious they may be about their role as America's screening process.

Because Iowa just ain't all that.

With that off my chest, I guess I'll be checking a little less personal baggage onto the flight. (And perhaps I'd better register at my hotel under a pseudonym.) You'll next hear from me when I'm on the ground...