The store manager from the home, farm and auto supply store phoned Sunday afternoon to ask me to work on Monday. The colleague who assumed my full time job last spring was visiting family in Nebraska and bad weather closed roads across the state, including Interstate 80. She couldn’t make it back in time for her shift.
In Iowa, helping out is part of our culture. I said yes I’d work and rearranged my plans so I could.
In addition, the farmer decided the weather was bad enough she didn’t want people venturing out to the farm. The roads were iced over and the wind howled at 30 miles per hour all day. Her sister, the shepherdess, posted social media photos of installing a new anemometer and weather station. Its LED panel displayed the digital message, “hold onto your hat!”
As I was settling in last night, the Washington Post put up an article about White House plans to form an “ad hoc group of select federal scientists to reassess the government’s analysis of climate science and counter conclusions that the continued burning of fossil fuels is harming the planet.”
In other words, the Fourth National Climate Assessment told the story of how dire our future could be without climate action. Rather than doing something, the administration is arguing with their own scientists that global warming is not caused by burning fossil fuels. These are times that will fry men’s souls.
Which part of yesterday’s howling wind was an amplification caused by global warming? The answer doesn’t matter because it’s the wrong question. We know the deleterious effect of burning fossil fuels. We also know thawing permafrost, agriculture, methane releases during oil production, building construction, manufacturing processes, air transport, deforestation, landfill decomposition and other human activities contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. We can’t get bogged down in details when the bigger picture is we have an obstructionist government led by Republicans and their conservative, dark-moneyed think tanks who would interpret the howling wind as something else. The better question is when will voters do something to fix this?
Yesterday’s wind was the kind that calls for hunkering down until it ends. Eventually we will have a calm, sunny day and the opportunity to work as normal. Or maybe it is something else, as Bob Dylan sang in the 1970s,
Idiot wind, blowing like a circle around my skull
From the Grand Coulee Dam to the Capitol
Idiot wind, blowing every time you move your teeth
You’re an idiot, babe
It’s a wonder that you still know how to breathe.
Thread by thread the fabric of our lives is unraveling.
What we thought was permanent turns out to be fleeting vapors transformed to undue amounts of snow.
Everything about the unraveling is out in the open and more’s the pity.
In a press release yesterday, Governor Kim Reynolds indicated she ended her court battle regarding Iowa Code chapter 146C, otherwise known as the “fetal heartbeat law.”
“This was an extremely difficult decision, however it is the right one for the pro-life movement and the state of Iowa,” Reynolds said. “When I signed the Fetal Heartbeat bill last May, we knew that it would be an uphill fight in the courts that might take us all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
“I think the Iowa Supreme Court got it wrong,” she said in the release, referring to the court’s decision to strike down the 72-hour waiting period included in the law.
Republican legislators plan to do something about the court getting it wrong. They plan to increase politicization of how Iowa judges are nominated to the governor by changing the composition of commissions that make those nominations. House Study Bill 110, and its companion, Senate File 237, have been introduced to that end.
Representative Mary Wolfe (D-Clinton) explained the issue in a Feb. 18 article in the Clinton Herald.
Here’s how our current system works: there are fourteen district court judicial nominating commissions — one for each of Iowa’s fourteen judicial districts. Each district court nominating commission is made up of five local citizens appointed by the governor and five local citizen-attorneys elected by local lawyers; the district’s senior judge acts as the chairperson of the commission. When a judicial vacancy arises in a judicial district, interested attorneys from that district submit applications and the members of the local judicial nominating commission, working together, select the two most qualified candidates to “send up” to the governor; the governor then chooses one of the two attorneys to fill the vacancy.
The Iowa Supreme Court process is similar in that it blends commission members appointed by the governor and chosen by attorneys, sending three nominees to the governor.
“The current system works,” Wolfe wrote. “Iowa’s non-partisan judicial nominating process is considered one of the best in the country, and our judiciary is consistently ranked in the top ten by many organizations (including conservative organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) in terms of expertise, efficiency and objectivity.”
“Rather than be distracted by a losing legal battle,” Gov. Reynolds said in yesterday’s press release about the abortion bill. “Now is the time to renew our focus on changing hearts and minds and to seek other ways to advance the cause of protecting the unborn in Iowa and around the nation.”
Among those “other ways” is to pack the courts. If the bills were to become law, all commission members would be selected by politicians.
I sent an email to my state representative on Sunday:
Bobby,
I don’t support the changes Rep. Steven Holt from Denison is proposing to the judicial nominating commission and the process for how judges are selected in Iowa.
Iowa Press ran an episode on Friday with Holt and Mary Wolfe from Clinton discussing their views on the matter and Holt did not make a substantial case for changing the process.
Holt repeated himself during the program, coming back to two things: that only 18.45 percent of attorneys vote on commission members selected by attorneys and that the voice of the people needs be heard. I believe the voice of the people has been heard in establishing the current process and it should not be changed without thorough vetting and public input. Most people I know aren’t even aware the change is being discussed. Your colleague Mary Wolfe made the case why Holt’s proposal is not good for Iowa and I agree with her.
I hope you will align yourself with moderates like Wolfe on this issue.
I appreciate hearing the schedule of your listening posts via email, so please keep sending the information. Thanks for your work in the legislature.
Regards, Paul
Kaufmann responded a few hours later, saying he would address judicial nominating reform in a public column in the near future. He is a member of the judiciary committee.
The simple truth is Republicans have the votes to do this and almost anything they want in the legislature. Elections have consequences and in 2018 Democrats fell short of re-taking a majority in the Iowa House and lost ground in the Senate. Republican Governor Kim Reynolds was elected for her first full term.
None of this is a hidden agenda now that the bills have been revealed. If changing the judicial nominating process was not a campaign issue in 2018 it is a legislative issue now.
Thread by thread, beginning in the 87th Iowa General Assembly, Republicans are unraveling the fabric of life in Iowa and this is just one more example. I believe this second two-year bite of the apple, the 88th Iowa General Assembly, will provide them the time they need and want to re-shape Iowa in the image of an insular group that ignores reason and would take our state backward.
Progressives, if we are to be successful, must row against the tide, never losing site of the shoreline, hoping our dreams and values hold together. On this snowy February day, under this governance, the veil of Maya wears thin.
The 2000 presidential election was transformative. It came down to Florida as the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the ballot recount on Dec. 9, 2000, 32 days after the general election. The election was even close in nearby Cedar County, Iowa where Al Gore beat George W. Bush by two votes, according to the secretary of state.
In retrospect, too many people felt like I did. I was no fan of Bill Clinton, although he was more popular — with 65 percent approval at the end of his second term — than any president since Harry Truman. I hadn’t worked for the Gore campaign, figuring he was a shoe-in. We deprived Gore of a substantial victory and changed history.
The work I’d taken on to support our family at the turn of the 21st Century was demanding and kept me from volunteering on political campaigns. I managed private fleets in the Eastern United States for an Eldridge-based trucking company. On election day I left home to visit our main customer, a Chicago-based steel services company, listening to radio coverage of election returns as I drove to a hotel in the western suburbs. After that night, and the Dec. 12, 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore, politics became personal in a way I hadn’t felt since the 1964 election of Lyndon Baines Johnson.
20 years later politics remains personal, although it has changed. With the rise of personal communications technology how we participate in politics is much different.
Newspapers
Newspapers used to be a primary source of political information and in many ways still are. Our daughter brought a copy of the local newspaper to her first Iowa caucus with the idea information therein would help her decide for whom to caucus. The main benefit of regular newspaper reading is being informed. Reading them on line provides a side benefit of no newsprint to recycle.
With a strong, daily background of what’s going on in the world, there are less surprises, and more opportunity to influence the course of daily events in politics and in everything else. People feel disenfranchised by our political process, but I’m willing to bet if they began reading a newspaper every day that would change.
It is important to support journalists who work for newspapers by paying for a subscription. I have four: the Solon Economist, the Iowa City Press Citizen, the Cedar Rapids Gazette and the Washington Post. The cost is $309 per year, a reasonable amount for the information provided.
In person communication
A lot of society doesn’t appear in newspapers. I’m thinking of key people in the community and how they spend their time. I’m not talking about that nice lady who details events in her clutch of friends for the local society column. When I participate in local events, or sometimes if I just hang out on Main Street, I run into policy makers and local activists who provide insight into contemporary affairs.
There is every reason to meet with people in a community to influence politics. Face to face, it’s harder to take extreme positions. There is a form of personal commitment, the idea we might run into each other again being a social glue that can bind us together. We may not agree on politics, but in person communication can be the main way we identify common interests and work on things together regardless of politics.
Computers and Applications
The first time we logged on the internet from a home computer was April 21, 1996 with an expensive Acer desktop. The three members of our family gathered around it in the kitchen, listening to modem squawk as we connected to an unknown world.
We didn’t know what to expect and I spent time exploring, including discovery of message boards, web sites, and information about corporations and our government. The main change in 23 years is adoption of computers as a fundamental part of life.
Part of what made this possible is the build-out of internet service providers and the advent of the laptop computer. Laptops enabled computer mobility that didn’t previously exist. In a nationwide campaign organizers could tote their devices with them to multiple locations, then connect to their campaigns via a local ISP.
In 1996 software applications were mostly installed on a hard drive. Now on line applications and cloud computing have become prevalent. Developments in the computer itself, internet service providers, and progress in applications, isn’t what changed our politics. How we use them is.
Consider the spreadsheet application — first LOTUS 1 2 3, then Microsoft Excel. They were a boon to the accounting profession. Largely gone are the columnar sheets written in pencil that tracked business revenues and expenses in favor of machine calculated totals and projections. Spreadsheets were rapidly adopted by accountants and businesses because of the labor savings they enabled. Few accountants would argue we return to non-spreadsheet days.
As important as spreadsheet applications have been, relational database applications made rapid headway in many fields, including politics. Combining a number of spreadsheets and establishing links between them, a political organizer could track contact with voters, monetary contributions, events, and demographics in specific geographies. Database applications revolutionized how campaign organizing was done.
After the 2000 election, computers and the internet began to play more significant roles in our politics. A notable innovator was Joe Trippi, author of the book The Revolution Will Not Be Televised: Democracy, The Internet, and The Overthrow of Everything. While working for the 2004 Howard Dean presidential campaign Trippi discovered ways in which the internet could be leveraged to organize and solicit monetary donations from a broad range of voters.
Another innovator and perhaps the most significant to campaign technology was Michael Slaby, chief technology officer of the Barack Obama for America campaign in 2008. His work of creating a relational database that tied campaign data to external demographic information, created voter targeting analyses that contributed significantly to Obama’s election. Slaby went on to develop The Groundwork in 2014, which is “… responsible for the critical functions of modern campaigning by using technological resources to consume digital data about voters, and then developing the technological means to assist presidential campaign target voters for fundraising, advertising, and outreach,” according to Wikipedia. Hillary Clinton was a client of The Groundwork in the run up to the 2016 election.
Telephony
At the 2006 Harkin Steak Fry at the Warren County Fairgrounds near Indianola, Iowa. I took a photo of the keynote speaker, Barack Obama, on my flip phone just before shaking his hand in the rope line. The flip phone was an important development because it freed us from landlines and from being anchored to a specific place while communicating with widespread colleagues. It also provided a low resolution photography function, eliminating the need to carry both a phone and a camera. At the time I had a separate Blackberry for work, which allowed texting and email capability. Many organizers carried a Blackberry during the 2008 Obama campaign.
In 2012, I purchased my first smart phone to support political work for a state house election campaign. Staying in communications with others was important to moving the campaign forward. The smart phone made using applications like text messaging, email and eventually social media wherever we are possible and brought us to today.
Conclusion
In a brief post it is hard to be encyclopedic about technology change that influenced our politics. This analysis is from a Democratic perspective, although Republicans adopted similar technologies. I didn’t discuss the impact of social media on our politics, although it was enabled by the technological developments described, especially the advent of smart phones.
What made the 2000 election significant is it activated a large number of voters like me who had become less active in politics. As technology became more a part of our lives, many of us became insular in our approach to politics to the detriment of broader social interaction. While science drove technology and made it possible, the unintended consequence was a dumbing down of the electorate. Insularity combined with rejection of expertise, facts and even truth has created a society where groups reject science in favor of primitive behaviors. Nothing better characterizes this movement than the 2014 measles outbreak in 21 states and the District of Columbia when vaccines to prevent the disease were ubiquitous.
When I propose reading newspapers to stay informed and interacting with humans in society it sounds old-timey but it’s not. Getting information from reliable sources is more important today than ever. Equally important is having a framework through which to view new information, given the democratization of communications means and ongoing social insularity. Sorting is happening in society that separates the rich from the rest of us, and pits people in one social cohort against others. The rise in communications technology and connectedness is making it worse.
What is the path forward? My initial answer is better education, especially in the K-12 system. Helen Keller gave an apropos path when she said, “The highest result of education is tolerance.” We don’t need to go back to school to learn that.
The author driving a parade vehicle in Morse, Iowa.
Four and a half inches of snow rests on the driveway waiting to be removed.
I like snow and don’t mind shoveling. I’ve gotten better at it since beginning work at the home, farm and auto supply store — a moderately physical job.
While fluffy snowflakes fell yesterday afternoon I made a batch of hot chocolate mix using ingredients from the pantry, enough to last until spring. I had to grind the granules of powdered milk in the blender because they would not dissolve as they were.
The warm, steamy drink is comforting and the best option after fresh apple cider from the orchard was used up.
Local political news was dominated by the Iowa Democratic Party’s release of proposed changes to the 2020 Iowa precinct caucuses.
“The Iowa Democratic Party has always sought ways to improve our caucus process, and today, we are setting the stage for the 2020 Iowa caucuses to be the most accessible, transparent, and successful caucuses in our party’s history,” Iowa Democratic Party Chair Troy Price said in a press release. “Starting almost immediately after the 2016 cycle, this party took a holistic look at how we can make the Iowa caucuses more accessible and transparent. These proposals are the result of thousands of hours of conversation and years of hard work.”
I read the 65-page proposal, which is open to public comments for the next 30 days, and believe it is what Price said, a move to make participation more accessible and transparent. I also believe the Democratic National Committee forced Iowa to take these kinds of steps to remain first in the nation. Let’s face it, getting any group together for a meeting at a specific time in February is a challenge. By adding what are called “virtual caucuses,” the proposal provides a method for people to participate if they are unavailable to venture into a cold February night to hang with other residents of a precinct for an hour or so. I’m all for it.
The Iowa national delegate selection process seems arcane to those in the media who follow the presidential horse race and report on it. They build up to the caucus and need to report a “winner.” When viewed in terms of winners and losers it is hard to say what winning delegates in Iowa means to a Democratic presidential candidate. The first month of the primary and caucus calendar has the early states, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, about a week apart. They will be followed by Super Tuesday during which nine states hold presidential votes, including Texas and California. What traction candidates may get out of Iowa is dampened by the close proximity of these other contests. To make sense of the horse race, all 13 early states should be viewed through the same frame.
It is hard to say if the caucuses are important. Political scientist David Redlawsk asserts the Iowa caucuses remain important and wrote a book about why. Last night on Twitter Redlawsk posted, “Caucuses are about party building & organization as well as voting.” For those of us who have been trampled by a mass caucus exodus immediately following precinct delegate selection, the merits of Redlawsk’s assertion about “party building” are dubious at best and border the ridiculous.
In our precinct we’ve mostly struggled to fill our committee assignments to the county party convention with caucus-goers who will show up. We have even nominated people not present to fill the two county party central committee seats rather than let one go empty. This is the main organizing that goes on at the Iowa caucuses. With the notable exception of 2008, participation is mostly by people who have been very active in party politics.
The pre-caucus publicity and outreach of campaigns helps activate voters. In an electorate where more voters register no preference instead of for one of two major parties, it serves the general election more than any political party. I’m sure discussions about what happened at caucus circulate among dinner tables and community social events where the mix of party affiliations is diverse. That’s something. It is hardly being organized.
We’ll see how the 30-day comment period on the new process goes. I’m guessing there will be tweaks rather than major changes by the time it is finished.
My beef about politics is everyone wants to be a strategist and few will be tacticians. For most of my adult life I’ve been more interested in tactics than strategy, so I find the attitude annoying. A first distinction among strategists usually has to do with sorting. Is one a party insider or a rank and file Democrat? Are you a hardcore activist or one of the normal people? I don’t accept such sorting and believe we Democrats are all rank and file. Or, as Walt Whitman wrote in Song of Myself, “For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.”
Now that Iowa Democrats developed a reasonable plan to make the Iowa caucuses more inclusive and transparent, the next step is working to flip my precinct and our state from Trump to Democratic in the general election. I don’t subscribe to a paternalistic notion that our Democratic presidential selection process beginning with the caucuses is rigged by the party. Just read the plan and explain how it favors someone. It doesn’t. Let Democrats nominate who they will and chips fall where they may. We should all be working for the eventual nominee whoever it is, beginning now.
SOLON, Iowa — Snow began to fall about 10 a.m., an hour before the scheduled legislative listening post with our State Senator Zach Wahls. By the time I got to the community center, about three inches of fluff was on the ground. We live in Iowa. We began on time.
It was a small gathering, affording everyone who wanted to ask questions or discuss issues adequate time. On points where there was disagreement — resolving opioid addiction and boat motor size on Lake Macbride — the topics advanced in a civil and straightforward manner. Credit to the senator for the way he moderated those conversations.
The mix of party affiliation of locals appeared to be half Republican and half Democratic. Of the people I knew, there was a retired firefighter, a chiropractor and the school board president. As is usually the case, several people from outside the district attended with their own agenda. By now, we’re used to that. The Center for Rural Affairs was a co-host of the event and had a display with literature available.
My question was about discussion of female genital mutilation in the legislature and news media. Senator Wahls said he hadn’t read a bill on the subject, and that no one he knew was in favor of the procedure. After the listening post I found both the Senate and House have versions of a bill making it a felony to perform genital mutilation or transport a minor out of state for the procedure. (Bill numbers are HF63, HF299, HSB115 and SF212).
Cedar Rapids Gazette columnist Lynda Waddington, who won an award on Friday for her editorial writing, laid out expectations for the legislature in a recent column:
Send a strong message that female genital mutilation will not be tolerated.
Give prosecutors the tools and resources to bring perpetrators to justice.
Signal to state prosecutors that this practice is a crime that must be prosecuted.
Provide education and outreach to at-risk communities and professionals likely to encounter girls at risk.
Include measures to specifically prevent girls being trafficked across state lines for such procedures.
“A federal judge said it is up to the states whether or not girls undergo female genital mutilation,” Waddington wrote. “Iowa lawmakers must make a statewide ban on this unnecessary and heinous practice their first priority.”
That’s why I felt it necessary to raise it with Wahls. The issue was known last session but a bill did not advance out of committee. Read Lynda’s article at the link for more background about why Iowa is even talking about female genital mutilation.
We covered a lot of topics in an hour. It was time well spent.
Tim Brown, president of the Solon School board, attended. Brown is an engaging conversationalist with a wealth of knowledge about what’s going on in the community. He was interested in the legislature’s plans regarding school funding. Wahls recapped the bills on which he expects to vote, maybe as soon as next week. There is plenty of ink out there with details, including James Q. Lynch’s Cedar Rapids Gazette story from this morning’s newspaper.
After the formal part of the meeting, a group of us discussed a variety of topics, including the fact that the school board election will be combined with other elections in November. Two seats are up. Since our school district straddles counties, there will be an additional election cost to the board for about 20 homes in the Solon Community School District located in Linn County. Johnson County Auditor Travis Weipert has not released detailed election plans according to Brown.
Even though the turnout was light, it was good to circle up with Senator Wahls on a snowy day in Solon before the first funnel.
Ice turned to mush as rain fell Thursday morning. The surfaces of Lake Macbride and the Coralville Lake appeared to remain frozen as I drove on Mehaffey Bridge Road.
When I arrived at the home, farm and auto supply store it continued to rain. By the end of my shift a layer of ice had formed on my windshield and morning slush had frozen.
I started the engine and chipped at the ice. It took half an hour to gain enough visibility to drive. I decided to skip a monthly political meeting, emailed the secretary of my absence, and headed home.
Iowa is a red state now. Voters had an opportunity to return balance to state government in 2018. Instead they chose Republican control of the governor’s office and state legislature. Taking advantage of their mandate, Republicans plan to take more control of the appointment of judges by changing the composition of a commission that selects nominees for Iowa courts. We’re a red state now, and we don’t like it.
We’re not leaving the state. To even consider it would be an anomaly in lives we’ve come to accept. In the end, politics is something, but not everything. It is definitely not important enough to get stuck in the county seat as the world freezes.
I’m interested in what the Congress does to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Yesterday New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced a resolution recognizing the federal government has a duty to create a Green New Deal. A draft of the resolution indicates the following goals for a Green New Deal during a ten-year national mobilization period:
to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;
to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States;
to invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century;
to secure for all people of the United States for generations to come—
(i) clean air and water;
(ii) climate and community resiliency;
(iii) healthy food;
(iv) access to nature; and
(v) a sustainable environment; and
to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous communities, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as ‘‘frontline and vulnerable communities’’).
Who wouldn’t like these goals? Senator Edward Markey introduced the same resolution in the U.S. Senate.
It doesn’t take an advanced degree to understand a Green New Deal is dead on arrival in Mitch McConnell’s senate. While such goals need to be met to slow global warming, politics has ceased to be an endeavor of doing what needs to be done to ensure our mutual survival. Success of any legislation designed to advance a Green New Deal depends on recognizing the threat the climate crisis poses to society. Today, more people recognize there is a climate crisis. Our politicians, not so much.
Al Gore remained positive in his press release supporting the resolution:
The Green New Deal resolution marks the beginning of a crucial dialogue on climate legislation in the U.S. Mother Nature has awakened so many Americans to the urgent threat of the climate crisis, and this proposal responds to the growing concern and demand for action. The goals are ambitious and comprehensive – now the work begins to decide the best ways to achieve them, with specific policy solutions tied to timelines. It is critical that this process unfolds in close dialogue with the frontline communities that bear the disproportionate impacts today, as this resolution acknowledges. Policymakers and Presidential candidates would be wise to embrace a Green New Deal and commit to the hard work of seeing it through.
Failure to act on climate is the same as denial. I’ll support a Green New Deal while recognizing we can’t place all our hopes on a single, political solution. As we discovered during negotiations leading up to the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, political solutions are far from perfect. They may be inadequate. Yet they are something and have value if they can be achieved.
One of the first things we did after moving to Lake County, Indiana was register to vote. Being a Democrat, I voted for Michael Dukakis in 1988, which was our first general election as Indiana residents.
I remember complaining about Iowa and the other early states for giving us Dukakis, whose nomination ultimately gave us George H.W. Bush. Indiana is one of the last states to vote in the presidential primary system so we had little say in the matter.
Dukakis placed third in the Feb. 8, 1988 Iowa caucuses with 22 percent of delegates. Dick Gephardt won the most with 31 percent and Paul Simon was second with 27 percent. As the contest illustrates, Iowa isn’t the decider here. We couldn’t even winnow the field of Dukakis.
We are one year away from the 2020 Iowa precinct caucuses and a lot of Democrats are running for president, the winner being determined by number of delegates, not votes. County Supervisor Rod Sullivan posted his top 25 candidates and that’s not even everyone. I don’t intend to spend much energy learning about them this early, mostly because I will vote for the Democratic nominee whoever it is.
I’m low on the strategy totem pole to have much to say about big picture Democratic politics anyway. My role as a member of the county central committee will be to help run our precinct caucus. Increasingly that means making sure the event is accessible, efficient and fair. It’s not about party building because after delegate selection, people want to get the heck out of there. Whoever manages it must create a welcoming environment where people are treated with respect. We had new attendees and a good discussion in 2018. I kept the contact information for everyone who showed up in case we need volunteers in 2020.
I have opinions about presidential candidates and here are a few of them.
We don’t need or want a septuagenarian billionaire. That’s what Republicans are expected to run and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg at the top of the Democratic ticket could be disastrous.
Being a current U.S. Senator is not a positive resume point. The biggest challenge Democrats face in 2020 will be regaining a majority in the Senate. We need as many experienced hands there as we can get. The last election in which we won a Senate majority was 2008 and even then, every legislative initiative Democrats pursued was challenging. There are good people among the senators running or considering a run. The only one I have ruled out is Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders who lost the primary in 2016 and is not a registered Democrat. The one I like the most is Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar who has not thrown her hat into the ring.
The only potential candidates I met besides some of the U.S. Senators are Joe Biden, John Delaney, Tulsi Gabbard and Julián Castro. Of these I like Castro, former mayor of San Antonio, for president. He sat with us in a darkened room during a power outage to talk policy a couple of days before his formal announcement. The rest of them are okay. Biden seems unlikely to announce a third campaign for president, Delaney has been campaigning in Iowa for a year and has not gained traction, and Gabbard is having problems during her campaign launch.
I don’t know much about the rest of them yet a couple are interesting.
I spent a lot of time in South Bend, Indiana where Pete Buttigieg is now mayor. The city was decimated after Studebaker closed its plant in 1963. There continues to be cultural detritus from that event. I spent time at the former Studebaker proving grounds during my transportation career and recruited truck drivers in the city. I’d like to learn what Buttigieg did to create a more positive cultural and economic environment in South Bend. My interest in economic and cultural change in the rust belt is probably not a reason to support him for president.
The other candidate I find interesting is Marianne Williamson. She talks and acts nothing like a politician. Williamson has her own following after being a New York Times best selling author. In her announcement speech Williamson mentioned proximity to Alan Watts and Ram Dass which places her in an era I thought was long gone. About 70 people attended her Iowa kickoff event in Des Moines last night, which wasn’t covered by our local newspapers. “People sang along with the final song of the opening band and introduced themselves to the people sitting around them.” wrote Des Moines Register reporter Robin Opsahl. I don’t know if caucus-goers will have the patience for the many discussions Williamson proposes we have. She’s likely right we need to have them, but that’s no reason to support her for president.
There is no question the presidential primary season is upon us. The field will hopefully shake out by the end of summer so there will be less homework to do. The fact I’m engaged at all a year out is about living in Iowa again.
This is part of a series about political issues that garner interest, but maybe too much or for the wrong reasons.
Main events occurred today at the Iowa State Capitol in the second week of the first session of the 88th General Assembly. Among them was a meeting of the State Government Committee about IPERS.
In a 5:22 a.m. email to my state representative and committee chair Bobby Kaufmann I wrote,
Good luck with the IPERS hearing today. I believe Iowa Policy Project and Progress Iowa are foolish to continue to hammer away at Republicans about IPERS. I agree it was problematic a couple of years ago to bring in the Reason Foundation to “evaluate IPERS,” however, the governor and Republican leadership got the message from Iowans not to mess with it. Time to move on.
A few hours later, I continue to believe that is true.
At the meeting Kaufmann reiterated his Dec. 6, 2018 assertion that under Republican leadership, and as long as he chaired the State Government committee, no changes would be made to IPERS. I’m sure today was meant to be the final word since everyone, including the governor, house speaker and senate majority leader said the same thing.
During the committee meeting, State Representative Mary Mascher, one of my favorite politicians and human beings ever, was mentioned by reporter Caroline Cummings in this tweet:
Cut to chase. Messaging the senate is not going to happen. Kaufmann would not have said what he did without Republican leadership support. After the 87th Iowa General Assembly, in which Republicans were noted for last minute bills Democrats barely had time to read before voting, any trust between Democratic and Republican members broke down. As Bobby Kaufmann’s father Jeff told me at the Solon Public Library on Jan. 21 2012, “There is no longer a Daniel Webster moment where people’s minds are changed in floor debates.” The “trust issue” to which Mascher referred is real and not going away.
At 1:01 p.m., shortly after the meeting, I received an email from Progress Iowa about it, confirming what was said, with a surprising addition, “We won’t be bullied by Bobby Kaufmann.”
IPERS is an important retirement program for many Iowans. It is right to stand up for it as was done the summer of 2017. However, it seems unlikely to be changed this session and maybe next because of the negative impact change would have on Republican chances in the 2020 general election. At what point do we move on to issues that matter as much or more?
When there is no imminent threat to IPERS the posturing, misrepresentation and hyperbole of groups like Progress Iowa seems misdirected. The cliche in politics is follow the money. Who is financially backing them? Why IPERS? The organization’s financial reports would likely provide answers.
It is important to watch the progress of IPERS in the legislature. It is simmering on a back burner and the governor said in 2017 she would like to evaluate changing the program to a hybrid with a defined contribution instead of a defined benefit for new members. She said she would protect the defined benefit workers were promised. Wealthy libertarians behind Dark Money in politics are playing a long game. Waiting a couple of years so house members can get re-elected is not an issue. Vigilance is required to make sure the IPERS pot doesn’t boil over unexpectedly. For now, the committee chair who would have to pass a bill has declared, “Not on my watch.” Democrats will be keeping watch.
It is time to set this one aside and focus on other, better, equally important things this session.
This morning our local newspaper, the Iowa City Press Citizen, ran an Associated Press story about Iowa GOP priorities during the legislative session convening today. The party is intent on re-making Iowa’s governance. By the end of this two-year general assembly they seem likely to touch every aspect of it.
We won’t hear much about Democratic priorities as Republicans continue to control both chambers of the Iowa legislature. What Democrats would have done this session faded into the history of the 2018 midterm elections. Those issues are likely to be forgotten and practically speaking, already have been. Former U.S. Senator Tom Harkin famously said government is like a car’s transmission. When in D (Democratic control) the state moves forward. When in R (Republican control) the state moves in reverse.We are a red state for at least the next two years and it’s up to the Republicans to make progress.
“I certainly would hope the governor will reach out to Democrats,” Senate Minority Leader Janet Peterson told the Cedar Rapids Gazette. “I think there’s a number of issues where we can come together and come up with bipartisan solutions.”
Time will tell, although it won’t take much time for the truth about bipartisan possibilities to reveal itself.
In our household there are some concerns.
When the IPERS pension system completed its last biennial review, Republicans brought in a Koch Brothers backed organization called the Reason Foundation to assist. After public conversation about potentially changing IPERS, the backlash was such that House Speaker Linda Upmeyer is saying no changes are contemplated. Governor Reynolds publicly agreed. Politically, it would be dumb for Republicans to reverse course on IPERS during this general assembly.
Governor Kim Reynolds will support her predecessor’s decision to privatize Medicaid, one of the most contentious issues in the 2018 midterms.
“We got off to a bad start,” Reynolds acknowledged to the Des Moines Register. “We took on probably more than we should have. We should have phased it in. And we probably tried to — we talked too much about savings.”
Newly sworn in State Auditor Rob Sand has pledged to perform an audit of the state’s Medicaid program to supplement what his predecessor produced after the midterm elections.
Reynolds is right to a degree. The measure of success or failure of privatized Medicaid will be how clients, practitioners and health organizations are treated by the managed care organizations. The cost of Medicaid to Iowans will matter as well. By almost all accounts, service to these constituencies sucked immediately after implementation. The measure of Republican success in improving Medicaid privatization after a disastrous implementation will be the degree to which patients see less hassle receiving care the program was designed to deliver. The administrative aspects of the program, including timely payment of providers, will matter as well. Will the care get better? Will providers get timely paid? Will there be savings? It seems too early to tell.
One of the things we like about Iowa has been fairness in governance. We have proven and fair methods for nominating judges to the bench and for redistricting after the decennial U.S. Census. Voter rights came under attack during the last general assembly and it was recently learned voters who should have been able to vote were disenfranchised by clerical errors originating in the Secretary of State’s office. For Iowa to be Iowa, it is important to maintain fairness in governance which includes making voting as inclusive as possible. All three of these areas of governance are expected to be reviewed this year.
Republicans will do what they do. They don’t seem concerned about backlash and believe they are doing what Iowans want. They won the 2018 elections and now we get another chance to see how they govern. If the 88th Iowa General Assembly is like the 87th, I believe they won’t maintain their majority beyond the next election.
I’ll be watching for points of leverage to influence the legislature, like there was during the IPERS discussion. For the time being, life will go on as we sustain our lives in a turbulent world.
Voters chose Republican control of the Iowa legislature last November and elected incumbent Republican Kim Reynolds governor. When the 88th Iowa General Assembly convenes next week, Democrats are expected to have limited influence over policy and law emerging from the state house.
We’ve been to this rodeo during the 87th General Assembly, and there is no reason to believe the efforts to remake our state in a more conservative mold will end. Is there common ground?
First, there is common ground, something forgotten during the politically divisive times in which we live. Among the most discussed issues during the general election were appropriate levels of funding for K-12 schools and higher education, improving water quality, encouraging a resilient system of agriculture, and bringing better fiscal discipline to privatized Medicaid.
There are other issues with less agreement that also require work. The legislature doubled corporate tax credits over the last five years and there is no evidence they are working to create jobs or improve Iowa’s economy. In 2010 voters approved a Natural Resource and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund which hasn’t been funded by the legislature. In 2013, legislation mandated a “rollback order” shifting the property tax burden from businesses to homeowners and farms. The legislature has been budgeting a “back fill” to protect property owners and a permanent solution is needed. It seems likely the general assembly will produce an amendment to the Iowa Constitution to enshrine the verbiage found in the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution. To make any impact on these, Democrats will be required to work smart against tough opposition.
We live in a conservative part of the most liberal county in a conservative state. We have a Republican state representative and a Democratic state senator as we have since after 2010 re-districting. The message I have for them going into the 2019 session is simple. Hold the line on guns, tax cuts, worker rights, reproductive rights. Create a bipartisan initiative to help farmers produce more revenue per acre, and do things (anything) that makes sense and supports Iowa values.
Journey Home 
You must be logged in to post a comment.