Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Welcome to the Iowa caucuses, aka the Big Show

2020 Iowa Democratic caucus

Iowans gather for the 2020 Democratic caucus.

Ellen Macdonald/Flickr

Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."

There is nothing like the Iowa caucuses. “Grassroots” doesn’t even begin to describe the process; it’s the very foundation of democracy. Registered party members, divided by voting districts, gather in a school, a public facility or a church basement with their neighbors, friends, employers, teachers, etc., anyone in the same party, precinct and ward. Then, once the party roster has been checked, the real “partying” begins.

The Democrats break into camps, divided by the candidate they support, a newcomer welcomed into the fold like a long-lost relative. Recruiting undecided voters, supporters wander from camp to camp, advocating for their candidate. Hands are raised, votes are counted, the top vote-getters move ahead. After a wild dance and much shuffling, realignment takes place, the field is whittled, at last the final results are tallied.

The Republican caucus is more traditional, using a secret-ballot vote, with the winner taking the state. In both caucuses, the parties discuss the national platform, what to support, oppose, challenge. Strong opinions swirl, arguments ensue, everyone is invested, everyone cares.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter


Iowans have held tremendous influence in the past with their Big Show, the first-in-the-nation caucuses. The caucuses are politics at its best, as Iowan as the famous butter cow at the state fair. Every citizen of the state has the opportunity to meet and assess the presidential candidates. Ninety-nine counties, and the candidates are everywhere.

At least the Republican candidates are here this year, as their in-person caucus has survived.

The Democrats, not so much. This is largely because they bungled the results of the 2020 caucus while trying out a new app designed to glean additional information. It turned out the app didn’t give much information at all, including the identity of the winners. The world waited and watched and waited some more, but in the end Iowa had no timely or tangible caucus results to report.

So, the Big Show is not as big this year, as roughly half of prospective caucus-goers are not traditionally caucusing. The Democrats are conducting their first-ever mail-in caucus, with “preference” cards sent out starting Jan. 12. They will still hold a “traditional Caucus,” but to discuss party business only. The results of this mail-in caucus will be announced on March 5, aka Super Tuesday, basically treating the caucus as one of many primaries that day.

Lest Republicans think they are above such snafus, let us remember 2012 when they, too, muddled their reporting and also threatened the legitimacy of Iowa’s first-in-the-nation status. They could not declare a winner, waffling between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, who each garnered about 25 percent of the vote. In a preliminary report, they declared Romney the winner. Two weeks later they announced the contest was, in fact, a draw. After that, they reversed themselves, and declared Santorum the winner. What?!

Yet, they held on. And on Monday, Jan. 15,, all registered Republicans will have a chance to again caucus in person. This is great news, not only for Iowa but for the election process.

Because those caucus gaffes were simply aberrations, not indications of the system itself. They were not the result of fraud or attempts at disenfranchising the voting process. Ultimately, they were the result of Iowans trying to be utterly thorough and fair in their caucus reporting.

Of course, every person, in every state, has the privilege of becoming involved, not just Iowans with their caucuses or those in early primary states. And involved not just in this election, but in all which impact us as citizens and the issues and people we care about. Engaging in our own life and times and caring enough to affect positive change in the world changes it already.

Iowa’s status has been challenged. It should not be.

Iowans get out, often in “stay at home” weather, to meet the candidates, listen to them, evaluate them. They take their “work” seriously. On Nov. 5, when we vote to choose the best person for arguably the most important job on the planet, thanks Iowans, who will have laid the groundwork.

Read More

Project 2025: The Department of Labor

Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a right-wing blueprint for Donald Trump’s return to the White House, is an ambitious manifesto to redesign the federal government and its many administrative agencies to support and sustain neo-conservative dominance for the next decade. One of the agencies in its crosshairs is the Department of Labor, as well as its affiliated agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Project 2025 proposes a remake of the Department of Labor in order to roll back decades of labor laws and rights amidst a nostalgic “back to the future” framing based on race, gender, religion and anti-abortion sentiment. But oddly, tucked into the corners of the document are some real nuggets of innovative and progressive thinking that propose certain labor rights which even many liberals have never dared to propose.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
mscornelius/Getty Images

We can’t amend 'We the People' but 'we' do need a constitutional reboot

LaRue writes at Structure Matters. He is former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.

The following article was accepted for publication prior to the attempted assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Both the author and the editors determined no changes were necessary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beau Breslin on C-SPAN
C-CSPAN screenshot

Project 2025: A C-SPAN interview

Beau Breslin, a regular contributor to The Fulcrum, was recently interviewed on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” about Project 2025.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.” He writes “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a Fulcrum series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting laws against homelessness

People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Republican House members hold a press event to highlight the introduction in 2023.

Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Biffle is a podcast host and contributor at BillTrack50.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, includes an outline for a Parents' Bill of Rights, cementing parental considerations as a “top tier” right.

The proposal calls for passing legislation to ensure families have a "fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces policies that undermine their rights to raise, educate, and care for their children." Further, “the law would require the government to satisfy ‘strict scrutiny’ — the highest standard of judicial review — when the government infringes parental rights.”

Keep ReadingShow less