Iowa's Caucus at History's Crossroads

After unbridled and unabashed attempts at political prognostication in Iowa, the results are in. For the first time in recent history of the United States an African-American has won a presidential caucus/primary, invoking Bobby Kennedy in a stirring victory speech that highlighted a vision of the future as much as it drew upon the spirits of 60's politics.

On the Republican side, a preeminent no-name just a few months ago, Mike Huckabee won decisively over the rest of the field, also giving a populist and notable victory address. Tapping into broad populist themes and the Christian evangelicals' opposition to abortion, he was able to forge an attractive alternative to the perceived all-too-slick Mitt Romney and all-too-city Rudy Giuliani.

The victories are indeed momentous and highlight some of the tectonic shifts underway in both the Democratic and Republican parties. For the Democrats, the Iowa caucus reflects the twilight of Clinton-style politics, if not the Clinton candidacy, which shakes some central pillars of the recent Democratic establishment.

Bill Clinton epitomized pandering, saying anything that was necessary to garner political support regardless of its truth, regardless of its legitimacy, and regardless of its impact. With each falsehood, cynicism grew among the American voters. Hillary Clinton, a divisive public figure continuing that tradition, voted to authorize the war in Iraq and has subsequently claimed that she did not on grounds that her vote really was designed to encourage more diplomacy. Democrats in Iowa have demonstrated they want a candidate they can believe and believe in, and they don't believe what Hillary (or Bill) Clinton say.

Additionally, Democrats spoke in 2006 that they want their representatives to stand for something. After being voted into the majority in congress, congressional Democrats squandered support by not standing up against Republican rhetoric and pressure, and find themselves disapproved of by 75-85% of the voting population. Iowan Democrats are sending a message: the era of Clinton-style pandering and misinformation has corroded the spirit of the electorate and Democrats want to believe in an honest, courageous leader who can rejuvenate their political spirit by standing up for well-reasoned policy.

Republicans hardly fare better. After years of courting evangelical Christian voters using the issue of abortion as a unifying issue, Republicans find the party has been consumed by evangelicalism, at the expense of traditional Republican orthodoxy. The result is that Huckabee, a minister who stands against abortion but who rejected some tenants of conservative orthodoxy as Arkansas's governor, has shocked pundits with a meteoric rise. Conservative talk radio has broadly rejected Huckabee on grounds that he is not a "true" conservative and the RNC cannot fathom a Huckabee candidacy.

A few lessons about the state of the Republicans can be drawn from Huckabee's win in Iowa. First, modern conservatism and the Republican party may soon not be synonymous. Republicans of the near future may soon have substantive debates over key issues that have been disallowed in the recent Republican party. Huckabee has diverged with modern conservatism on tax policy, health care policy, immigration policy, among others. Republicans are beginning to struggle with party diversity and the logistical difficulties it presents.

Second, modern conservatism worked hard to link the issue of abortion to conservative politics to court Christians and broaden the Republican base. Now, evangelicals, at least in Iowa, are asserting their power in the conservative movement and Republican party. Republicans are beginning to learn that evangelicals are coming to the polls at an increasing price to the party, that there may have to be compromise in areas that Republicans have assumed is beyond discussion. Iowan evangelicals are sending a clear message: they will not be pawns for RNC strategies without some substantive political recompense, and they are claiming a candidate.

Though the Iowa caucus has been historic (in both turnout and outcome), pregnant with possibility for political change and a renaissance of civic participation, the rest of the country has yet to prove they are up to the challenge. But for there to be real change in any political process, the electorate must inform themselves and participate. Most Americans would be shocked at what has been done in Washington D.C. in their name if they knew just basic civics and the smallest portion of their representatives record and significant legislation. Iowa's caucus may indeed mark change: change in participation, change in knowledge, change in party politics, change in expectations, among others. But if Iowa is to be more than ephemeral and fleeting optimism, then the winners tonight must continue their success and the electorate must carry the mantle of civic responsibility.