So now it's all Iowa's fault?!

As my friends all know, it's ridiculously easy way to get a rise out of me if you choose to--just attack the Iowa caucuses. It seems that every four years the same few friends and I have the same argument about Iowa’s place in the presidential nominating process—surprisingly, none of us ever changes anyone else’s mind on the topic.

I thought I had heard it all in the quadrennial attacks on my home state—but Peter Beinart introduced me to some new material in the Washington Post this week. Luckily, this one is much easier to take apart than the arguments of my intelligent, yet wrong-headed, friends.

Beinart’s main claim seems to be that Iowa nominates doves. Sort of like they did in 2004, when they voted for the dovish candidate, Howard Dean. Except, that’s right--Iowa didn’t vote for Dean. Iowans actually chose John Kerry, who voted FOR the war (before he voted against it), and then for John Edwards, also a war supporter. Dean, the dove, finished third. By Beinart’s standard (the more dovish, the more likely to win Iowa), Dennis Kucinich should have won the state, with his idea of a Department of Peace, instead of finishing with about the same percentage of votes as those candidates who had actively spurned the state. As supporting evidence, he points out that some candidates have skipped the Iowa caucuses. Like Al Gore, in 1988. Except Gore didn’t skip Iowa because of his war vote. He skipped it because in Iowa, in 1988, you couldn’t turn around without bumping into someone running for president, and he knew he couldn’t win, and it wasn’t just about the war. Or Joe Lieberman, in 2004. Except Lieberman skipped Iowa because he didn’t have any money, and he doesn’t support ethanol—a much more egregious sin than war-mongering.

He also argues that Iowans are uncommonly dovish, because of our “peace churches” and our lack of military contact. Except there are far more Mennonite churches in Kansas, or in Virginia (two states no one would call dovish), then there are in Iowa. Iowa has 9 Quaker meeting houses, as opposed to 34 Assembly of God churches or 76 Southern Baptist Convention churches. And they don't build weapons or have a giant active duty military base in the state, which may explain the relatively low amount of defense dollars flowing in; but most Iowans are related to, married to, or friends with at least one person currently serving in Iraq. To suggest that Iowans are substantially removed from and disdainful of the military is wrongheaded on its face.

It’s true that Democratic caucusgoers in Iowa are doves--at not dramatically different rates than Democratic primary voters throughout the nation. And, setting aside any discussion of the efficacy of the caucus system itself (because that’s a whole other argument), there’s nothing about the system that makes it easier for doves than hawks to navigate. Beinart asserts, rightly so, that it’s hard to participate in caucuses, making it more likely that true believers will dominate. But why would that be more likely to be doves than union members, pro-choice voters, or African-Americans (don’t laugh; there are a few in the state!), all equally reliable Democratic supporters?

It seems to me that what's really going on here is that Mr. Beinart doesn't like the Iowa caucuses, and has come up with a nifty new reason to give them the heave-ho from their 'First in the Nation' position. Like the caucuses or don’t like them—either way, Beinart’s article is not only ridiculous to suggest that Iowa is to blame for the Democrats’ national security problem; it shows that he doesn’t know much about Iowa. I bet if he wanted to go visit, the Quakers would be happy to show him around.