 |
| Originally Aired: January 3, 2008 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Iowa's Presidential Caucus Holds Unique Place in History |
|
|
| Since Iowa moved its caucus ahead of the New Hampshire primary over 30 years ago, it has held a pivotal role in the presidential nominating calendar. Historians offer a look at how and why the results of the Iowa caucus have proved so historically significant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
   
  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JIM LEHRER: Yes, and now to a question many non-Iowans are asking tonight. How did the Iowa caucuses end up playing such a prominent role in presidential politics? Well, Ray Suarez has that story. RAY SUAREZ: To explore that, we turn to our presidential historian regulars: Michael Beschloss and Richard Norton Smith, scholar in residence at George Mason University. We're also joined by Beverly Gage, assistant professor of American history at Yale University. And, Michael, has it always been so? Has Iowa always been, a, first; b, a caucus; and, c, a very big deal? MICHAEL BESCHLOSS, Presidential Historian: B, it had been a caucus for a long time, but not the others. It was only first in 1972, and that put it on the map. Jimmy Carter knew that doing well in Iowa would put him on the map in 1976 as someone who was very unknown. Since then, candidates have spent an awful lot of time on Iowa. RAY SUAREZ: Professor Gage, is it really just the core of Iowa's importance being now that it's first? Is that why it's fought so hard to maintain that distinction? BEVERLY GAGE, Yale University: Well, Iowa's prominence now is a triumph for Iowa. That is the reason that it is in the position that it's in. It was something of a historical accident. Iowa set out to make itself first, but I don't think even 30 years ago, when they did that, as Michael said, in 1972, that anyone had any idea that you were going to see the amount of money being spent here, that you were going to see this level of attention paid to a relatively small and unrepresentative state. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Richard Norton Smith
George Mason University |
|
|
 This is the state historically where someone can come in with very little in the way of financial resources or name recognition and ... it is theoretically possible for someone to catapult themselves into the front rank. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Propelling unknown candidates
RAY SUAREZ: Well, it helped McGovern. It helped Jimmy Carter. Was it also a big deal on the Republican side in the 1970s?RICHARD NORTON SMITH, George Mason University: It became a big deal on the Republican side, but I would also say that, in addition to being first, there is a narrative about Iowa. Michael's mentioned Jimmy Carter, and we've mentioned George McGovern. This is the state historically where someone can come in with very little in the way of financial resources or name recognition and, because it is a small, rural state where people take very seriously the process of vetting these candidates, it is theoretically possible for someone to catapult themselves into the front rank. I mean, we're seeing that with Mike Huckabee, for example, in this year's contest. In 1980, it's also a race where, curiously enough, where you come in -- it doesn't matter so much who crosses the finish line first, if the attention is all on who comes in second, and it's all about expectations and momentum and beating those expectations. In 1980, on the Republican side, George H.W. Bush managed to upset the prohibitive favorite for the Republican nomination, Ronald Reagan. And as it turned out, it didn't get him very far, but it got him a few days of what he called "big mo." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Beverly Gage
Yale University |
|
|
| Iowa itself has developed a committed group of activists, a way of doing business that you wouldn't see anywhere else. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Small, committed electorate
RAY SUAREZ: Well, Richard referred to an electorate taking its job very seriously in this case. But if this was a primary, we'd think, "Seriously? Really? With a 10 percent turnout?" Is the fact that it's a caucus something that makes us consider this a more serious undertaking?Go ahead, Professor. BEVERLY GAGE: I certainly think one of the things that's happened in Iowa, because this has been going on for more than 30 years now, is that you've just developed a political culture that you don't see in any other state. So Iowa itself has developed a committed group of activists, a way of doing business that you wouldn't see anywhere else. MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: And I love it, because we're in a process now that is totally dominated by money and name ID, consultants, this whole political operation. And here a miracle of miracles, at this late date, the first test is this small state where these candidates get vetted by this very active, serious group of people, maybe only 10 percent, but quality rather than quantity. They take this very seriously, and they do a great job. I think the founders would be thrilled to know that, at least at the beginning, this process is candidates having to go house to house, explain themselves to Americans, rather than sitting in a TV studio in New York or L.A., which is what it would be if there was a national primary. RAY SUAREZ: Go ahead. BEVERLY GAGE: I was going to say, this is probably the closest thing that we have in this day and age to what you might have experienced in the 19th century, that kind of intimate politics. MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Absolutely. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Michael Beschloss
Presidential Historian |
|
|
| [T]o have Iowa with so much importance in the beginning, it's going to affect so much the outcome probably in New Hampshire four or five days later, I think people have to set a little bit more in context than they seem to be doing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notable Iowa races
RAY SUAREZ: Well, have there been any particular hard-fought Iowa races that stand out for you, Richard?RICHARD NORTON SMITH: Oh, sure. I mean, Jimmy Carter, of course, who in many ways made Iowa in 1976, it was the making of his re-election in 1980. Remember, after the Tehran hostages were taken and the economy was not in very good shape, it was widely believed that Senator Edward Kennedy would have a relatively easy time. One thing we have to remember about Iowa is that it is in some ways unrepresentative, in that each party tends to draw its most fervent believers. So, for example, tonight with the Republicans you'll see something like 40 percent who are evangelical Christians. On the Democratic side, you're going to see very strong representation by labor unions and anti-war activists. So in that climate it was figured that Ted Kennedy, the conscience of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, would have a relatively easy time in defeating Jimmy Carter. In fact, Carter defeated Kennedy substantially, and it really almost put the kibosh on the Kennedy insurgency in 1980. RAY SUAREZ: Michael? MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: And it raises a little bit of a problem, having said something nice about Iowa, and that is Iowa was great when you had a process that lasted about four or five months, as it did that year. Now this thing is front-loaded. It's going to take place in one month. And so to have Iowa with so much importance in the beginning, it's going to affect so much the outcome probably in New Hampshire four or five days later, I think people have to set a little bit more in context than they seem to be doing. RAY SUAREZ: Professor, Richard, Michael, thank you all. MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Pleasure. BEVERLY GAGE: Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Mark Shields
Syndicated Columnist |
|
|
| [T]he things we look for in a president, that ability to listen, to learn, to connect, to excite, and to convert people to a point of view are tested in spades in Iowa. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Historically, predicts nominees
JIM LEHRER: And again to Mark Shields and David Brooks.David, do you agree that the founders of this country would be happy about what is happening in Iowa tonight? DAVID BROOKS: I think they would, because it is the give-and-take. The candidates really can't get away from sleeping at a Motel 6 in Pocahontas, Iowa. I tried to get a sandwich at the mall today, and there was Barack Obama between me and my Subway turkey club sandwich. They are really just talking to people. And one of the things that's happened is that the two great themes of this campaign this year -- which are economic populism and the idea that the leadership class in the country has failed -- has bubbled up from all these little conversations, and the candidates have all responded to it, whether they were aware of it at the beginning of the year or not. JIM LEHRER: How do you feel about this, Mark, in terms of Iowa and what it's done for the process, this particular year right now, and as it's about to come to a head tonight? MARK SHIELDS: Well, I think that Michael Beschloss's point was very salient, Jim. That is, that it made it -- it had a greater purpose when the process was a longer process. This compressed process puts a greater burden upon Iowa. Still, the things we look for in a president, that ability to listen, to learn, to connect, to excite, and to convert people to a point of view are tested in spades in Iowa. And I think it -- I think we've seen that in this election of 2007-2008. And I think Iowa has served its purpose very, very well. It is no accident that the last two campaigns, 2000, 2004, the winners of Iowa in both parties -- George Bush and Al Gore in 2000, and George Bush and John Kerry in 2004 -- ended up in the finals. And I think it's a testimony to Iowa's vetting abilities. JIM LEHRER: But the vetting ability, David, would you not also agree with Richard Norton Smith, that the vetting is being done by activists of both parties, not the folks in the middle, not the average voter. These are not average voters who are participating in these caucuses tonight, correct? DAVID BROOKS: No, and not a lot of minorities out here, either, very, very, very white crowds. On the Republican side, it's kind of interesting, though, because you have two different sorts of activists. Here, very socially conservative, very religious activists. But then, in a few days, they're going to go to New Hampshire, which as Mark has pointed out in weeks past, is a very secular, less religious state. And so you've got two different, entirely different sides, types of activists. And that means the electorate in these two states, at least on the Republican side, very different from one another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Iowa's Presidential Caucus Holds Unique Place in History |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
