Tag: politics

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.

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 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.

We’ll see if they are up to the challenge.

SOLON, Iowa — A group of local, Democratic activists met with former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julián Castro on Jan. 7 at the Solon Community Center.

Castro was staffed by long-time political operative and former Iowa Democratic Party chair Derek Eadon on a brief tour of Iowa with stops in Cedar Rapids, Solon and North Liberty. Castro said he plans to announce his intentions regarding running for president in San Antonio, Texas on Saturday. It was clear the announcement will be he’s running.

The chairs of the Cedar and Johnson County Democratic Parties attended, as well as three current and former Solon City Council members. The gathering was intended to be intimate. We each had our turn asking questions and commenting on the prospects of a Democrat winning in rural Iowa.

Electricity service went out shortly after we’d gathered around some tables that had been pushed together. The outage extended throughout the city and included rural areas. We continued to talk in a room only partly illuminated by candle and mobile device light.

Castro doesn’t plan to accept political action committee funds in his campaign. Is he bringing a knife to a gun fight? He said he’s not and that sufficient funds could be raised from small-sized donations from individuals. Mayor of Swisher and Johnson County Democratic Party Chair Chris Taylor confirmed that eschewing PAC money included taking none from labor unions. In addition to campaign finance, Castro’s priorities include affordable housing, healthcare and infrastructure — core Democratic values.

While attendees were curious about Castro he repeatedly turned the tables on us, asking what our friends and neighbors were thinking and saying about policy. He was there more to listen than to be interrogated about his potential candidacy.

When my turn came to talk about policy, I said policy is less important to a presidential candidate as long it reflects core Democratic values. I suggested he could follow the lead of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi regarding policy. Castro, who was sitting next to me, seemed somewhat taken aback by the comment as Pelosi has been a lightening rod of criticism of Democrats. It was hard to gauge the reaction of others in the darkened room.

What about rural voters? Media, including major Iowa news organizations, have cast a rural versus urban divide among voters. The flight of Iowa young people to our biggest cities and out of state is no secret. At the same time there are rural Democrats who regularly show up at the polls. Castro acknowledged the need for outreach to every voter.

Julián Castro seemed genuine, honest and engaged. Those are qualities we need in a president. I appreciate the unique, Iowa opportunity to sit down with him and discuss issues of the day. At 13 months until the first in the nation Iowa caucuses the county party is already lining up meeting rooms. While it is not yet time for them there is light on the distant horizon. We hope it is the light of change.

I didn’t vote in the 1976 general election where the choice for president was between incumbent Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter of Georgia.

1976 was the first election in which new Democratic National Committee rules were in effect to change the presidential nominating process. Iowa went first, Carter realized it, and he showed up with an aid at the Iowa State Fair that August to campaign.

I was in military training and couldn’t figure out where I’d be on election day. I was unfamiliar with how service members voted and there was no mention of voting as I trained to became a military officer at Fort Benning, Georgia.

In 1976 voting didn’t matter to me. I was doing my part to serve our country, and the national nightmare that was the Richard Nixon administration had ended. I felt comfortable with the electorate deciding between Ford and Carter without me.

Even with its problems, the nominating process that now begins in Iowa is more open than it was when Hubert Humphrey was picked as the 1968 Democratic candidate for president in a Chicago hotel room by a small group of cigar-smoking men.

In 2016 complaints about “establishment Democrats” tilting the caucuses toward Hillary Clinton were frequent. George McGovern and other architects of the current nominating process did reasonable work and shouldn’t be blamed for the rise of internet chat rooms, social media, and reporters that look for stories with an easy hook to garner clicks on the web. The rise of the internet had an impact on the Iowa caucuses by facilitating easy communication about almost any topic and promoting the rise of conspiracy theories like the one that something called “establishment Democrats” exists and is a force for no good.

It looks like the Iowa Caucuses will go first again in 2020, although that’s not guaranteed. It also looks like the field of Democratic candidates will be large, maybe as many as 20 men and women when we get into the thick of it. For Iowa Democrats, who wins the horse race here is insignificant compared to the need for party building.

Under Troy Price’s leadership, the Iowa Democratic Party made progress rebuilding its brand during the 2018 midterm elections. That work should continue. More than anything, the Iowa Democratic Party should encourage participation by all in the presidential preference part of an open caucus process. IDP should not forget their main role is to build the party, something sorely needed if one looks at Fred Hubbell’s 2018 election map.

With limited time and resources, a focus on party building instead of selecting and supporting our favorite pick for president is the harder choice. What I sense already is many active Democrats will start to hunker down behind their fave presidential candidates and leave party building to others. That is a recipe for failure. It doesn’t have to be that way.

I’m no longer a fan of having a presidential preference pick as part of the Iowa caucuses, mostly because it doesn’t accomplish what is needed most — building our party into a winning team. I know the consequences of giving up “first in the nation,” and am ready to let go. However, that’s not the process we have so I’m stuck dealing with reality. Dealing with reality is a narrative I can back.

I do plan to vote in 2020.