On Feb. 3, I made my way to my county Democratic meeting, paid my yearly dues of $20 and heard three speakers — stumping for one county candidate, one national, one city issue — and then heard a little debate from the floor about the future of industrial agriculture in our mostly small-farms community. That’s my subject, but I just listened in awe. People were well-informed! They understood the issue and how the Republicans at the state and federal level were screwing our farmers. I started for home feeling pretty good about democracy.
Then I got in the car, tuned in our community radio station, KOPN 89.5 FM, which was carrying the Pacifica feed and heard that, even though the polls had closed and it was 10 p.m., there were no official results from the Iowa caucuses. At around 11, the Biden campaign complained about the process. And that was the status when Pacifica signed off at midnight, the hosts admitting they were exhausted.
If you’ve had the urge to disrespect independent media lately, like the medium presenting this column to you, please hush. Having heard the reports from Iowa carried by Pacifica, I’m grateful for the voices they interviewed — native American, rural, idiosyncratic artists, students, football fans, environmentalists, veterans and volunteers from New York, Houston and places around Iowa. And, I’m excited to read the columns from my fellow Progressive Populist writers, cogitating as the dust settles.
Mergers and cuts in news media have made it so that many American voices are lost. Not only are there fewer independent sources, but the reporters and columnists who are left are underpaid and overworked, left with the choice of staying and starving or fleeing to survive. Young professionals are, of course, the least able to thrive, even though they should be the most important as they’ll be around the longest.
The impression from the Pacifica broadcast was not like what we’ve heard from the networks or national press. Pacifica Foundation is a non-profit with headquarters in Berkeley, California. It leans progressive. Folks calling in to Pacifica from caucus sites — and there were 1,679 precincts reporting from across the state, and a few international ones—were reporting a progressive sweep. At midnight, Sanders looked like the winner, based on the call-ins, with other progressives at his heels.
No doubt the DNC was surprised by the power of progressive voices this time around. If they had listened, back in 2016, they would have gotten a clue. Back then, Hillary got 49.9% of the caucuses and Bernie got 49.6%. This year, with more possible candidates — 11, if you count all the folks that should have dropped out but didn’t — it was inevitable that things would be more divided.
So, even though turnout was less than expected, caucus captains were having trouble reporting their results and they were expressing disappointment at the lack of response at the state level. Some had been on-hold for an hour when they called to report. There were complaints about lack of investment by the DNC in grassroots training, technology and understanding. Never mind interference from Russia and Ukraine, went one line, the DNC will kill the Democrats. After two years of campaigns, the state and the candidates were getting screwed.
To make things weirder, somebody — either the Iowa Dems or the DNC — had changed some rules for the caucus, making it (in the words of Steffen Schmidt, Iowa State University political scientist) “more bureaucratic” and “more complicated.” According to Schmidt, organizers had to deal with almost 40 pages of new instructions. Rather than making the system easier for caucus chairs, the new system asked for more data. They needed to record and report first-round choices, second-round choices and then, using mathematical computations, the caucus leaders had to figure out “delegate equivalents”. There was, fortunately, a backup system with paper ballots—shades of hanging chads.
So, is it time to retire the caucus system? Since the major question, we all agree, is who can beat Trump, there’s been a lot of whining about Iowa being the wrong state for the first exercise in democracy before an election. Iowa is, no doubt, atypical in the United States. Not enough urban vote. Not enough black vote. Not enough rust belt. But the truth is that Iowa’s the perfect place for the race to begin. There’s room, in Iowa, for everyone who wants to be involved to actually be involved. People in Iowa can actually get close to the candidates, to see them. Start the process in New York or California, say, we’ll never get to know the candidates.
But smallness might be a disadvantage. A caucus is embarrassingly intimate: A person stands in front of friends and neighbors for one candidate or another. Bernie fans, who have never been shy about their support, can be intimidating to supporters of less-popular candidates. The caucus is the very opposite of the cloistered voting booth.
When you go to vote in your state primary or caucus, let’s hope things are worked out and you can get your voice into the mix. You deserve it. We deserve it. Democracy deserves it.
Margot Ford McMillen farms near Fulton, Mo., and co-hosts “Farm and Fiddle” on sustainable ag issues on KOPN 89.5 FM in Columbia, Mo. She also is a co-founder of CAFOZone.com, a website for people who are affected by concentrated animal feeding operations. Her latest book is “The Golden Lane: How Missouri Women Gained the Vote and Changed History.” Email: margotmcmillen@gmail.com.
From The Progressive Populist, March 1, 2020
Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us