Politics In Isolation

Rural Polling Place

It must be hard for out of state political organizers to penetrate the shield of work, family and friends behind which many Iowans spend most of their time.

That’s especially true as the large field of presidential candidates self-sorts in the polls, resulting in what seems an inevitable field of Biden, Harris, Sanders and Warren. If they can gain traction through some sort of campaign breakthrough, maybe add Booker, Buttigieg, Klobuchar and one or two of the others people recognize. A recap of 20 Iowa polls from 538.com is here.

According to a June CNN poll 44 percent of primary voters had decided their first choice for president, with most of the rest saying their choice is subject to change. There is a long Iowa tradition of waiting until the last minute to decide for whom to caucus in presidential years. What plays a role this cycle is the common statement, “I support X, but will vote for whoever the party nominates because we have to beat Donald Trump.” Against this background, organizers have to identify voters to support their candidate, knowing minds could change in the more than six months until the Iowa caucuses. Based on my experience there will be a groundswell behind candidates who are perceived as potential caucus winners.

The basics of political organizing haven’t changed in a long time. My father explained how he organized for the 1960 campaign of John F. Kennedy. The union provided mimeographed 8-1/2 x 14 inch sheets with a blank grid of homes on it. Dad’s job was to contact people in each house on the blocks he was assigned, discuss the election with them, and record the results on the sheet. The completed sheets went back to the union hall. Dad had no trouble completing this work in a timely manner and he enjoyed meeting with neighbors. It was pretty basic, and of course Kennedy won that cycle.

Things are different in 2019. To be successful, candidates have longer range plans than contacting voters and dutifully recording their opinion in a database. For example, Elizabeth Warren has organizers holding “office hours,” working on art projects, tabling at farmers markets, attending local events, and working on farms. There may be some payoff to such activities in the form of signed commitment cards. What seems more important is outside organizers become part of the community. When we think of the candidate, we can put a face with that name and have a contact for outreach if there is a question. It is not just Warren using a longer term approach and candidates who don’t seem unlikely to gain traction.

There is also the money issue, which has rendered contact with most candidates via email, social media and other communications methods meaningless. People get it. Campaigns cost a lot and sending me three or four emails per day soliciting donations is a numbers game in which you hope to wear us down with repetition.

What makes this year different is the shield. It is hardening. In case you missed it, things are not great in America these days. Beginning with health care, including Medicaid, Medicare and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Republicans are trying their best to undo it all. The care provided in these programs has never been the best. Just ask someone who needs care or knows someone who does. At the same time, they represent something positive in our lives. Social Security is a target even though it is funded separately from the government and viable at least until 2034. Republicans also seek to break up the scientific approach to problem solving in USDA, EPA and other government agencies turning them more political. The Justice Department re-instated the death penalty this week. Government is becoming more political than it was. Post-World War II progressive initiatives are being rolled back.

Whatever the outcome of these long-standing Republican initiatives, voters are withdrawing into smaller, isolated communities where they protect their own interests first. As others have noted, this gives rise to an us vs. them view of the world with which political organizers have to work. People have become skeptical that participating in politics has much meaning and push back on politics except within their group. Under the shield, political discussions can be very active, but mostly among group members regarding their core concerns.

Community organizing remains an important aspect of penetrating the shield of isolation. Finding common ground with friends and neighbors and with others in the community, is no panacea, yet it remains a centerpiece of problem solving. The trouble is picking an action, and there has been little agreement in groups to which I belong or with which am familiar unless a problem is obvious and significant.

Behind the shield, behavior harkens back to tribal both in selection of targets for action and in attitudes and methodologies used to achieve them. If a community’s drinking water is sub-standard, members are likely to take action if they can. Politics? Not so much.

It is difficult to see how the Democratic presidential nominating process will turn out. What seems clear is voters’ disaffection with politics has created a type of isolation that requires a new kind of campaigning. Someone will be the Democratic nominee for president and a majority of Democratic voters will support him/her. However, the thrill is gone in primary campaigns among Democrats, which makes traditional, individual campaign strategies and tactics less useful in producing a winning candidate.

There are no easy answers. Hard work and grit will play a role as they always have. Voters will be canvassed as they have been for generations. To the extent campaign organizers don’t work to penetrate the shield, their efforts seem unlikely to produce a winner in the Iowa caucus.

In the meanwhile, summer is here and is fit distraction from political talk. Maybe people will engage outside their tribe when the new year begins. For now we need protection from the harsh summer of Trumpism.

This entry was posted in 2020 election campaign and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Politics In Isolation

  1. C.A. says:

    Another challenge is that some of us older Iowa Democrats no longer like the Iowa caucus system, though we may not say so in public. We now wish we could vote in a primary instead.

    And some of us have shifted focus. One definition of “politics” is “the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area.” In that sense, I’m politically active. I work on a few select issues, mostly local, where it feels like making a difference might still be possible. So, per this post, some of us, while we respect those working outside the shield, are kind of working under it.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. C.A. says:

    And here is an example of why I don’t like the Iowa caucuses. They help lock candidates into kissing the collective giant hiney of Big Ag.



    • Paul Deaton says:

      Thanks for reading my article.

      I don’t agree that because a presidential candidate visits an ethanol plant they are locked into anything. For example, Elizabeth Warren is named in the article and she has called for breaking up “big agriculture.”

      Ethanol isn’t really the issue. The issue is over-production of corn and soybeans originating in the Earl Butz days of running the Department of Agriculture. The culture of planting fence row to fence row is much more important to ethanol than when and how Iowa chooses its presidential candidate every four years.

      In many ways the caucuses have outlived their usefulness, mostly because more people now want to participate. It has less to do with any specific Iowa issue and more to do with physical constraints such as finding rooms big enough to hold a caucus and managing a gathering of a couple hundred people with volunteers that have an hour or two of training.

      What I pointed out in my post was the increasing withdrawal of political discussions from the public into what I describe as tribes. The type of organizing done as recently as in 2007-2008 doesn’t work the same way in this culture. As people harden into tribes, it becomes more difficult to work together on common problems.

      Not sure this fully addresses your point, but it is a start. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

      Regards, Paul


  3. C.A. says:

    Paul, you make many valid points, as usual. And if I had it to do over, I would not have used such a crude metaphor. Your blog deserves better.
    After rereading the linked story, however, I still glumly agree with most of it. And I’m pretty sure, from what I’ve seen during past caucus campaigning and from what I’m seeing now, that the ethanol industry agrees too.


  4. C.A. says:

    And today the CEDAR RAPIDS GAZETTE has a big story headlined “Ethanol vs. Environment: Democratic candidates campaign on clashing agendas,” and right under that is “Some support ethanol and Green New Deal, but those are opposing stances.” By pressuring POTUS candidates to pledge allegiance to corn ethanol, Iowa is doing America no favors.


    • Paul Deaton says:

      Thanks for commenting on our blog. I pay for a subscription to and read the Cedar Rapids Gazette on line daily. I believe in supporting the journalists who produce articles through a subscription to my main news sources. The article you mention was in Sunday’s edition.

      I don’t accept Reuters’ framing on this story mostly because “None of the campaigns responded to requests for comment,” as it says in the text. I know that “Iowa” is not of one voice regarding ethanol and neither are the candidates.

      The story that stood out in the Gazette today about ethanol was related to the negative impact the administration’s tariffs are having on the ethanol business. Plants are expected to slow down, close temporarily or close permanently as the tariffs continue and the administration continues to favor support for fossil fuels. If ethanol is important to Iowa, then Republicans are the problem, including the president and our two U.S. Senators.

      There are more issues with editorial framing of the Democratic campaigns, this time by Reuters, than there are with our opposition to ethanol.


      • C.A. says:

        I apologize for getting the date of the story wrong. I subscribe to four Iowa newspapers, including the GAZETTE, and I absolutely agree with you about paying for good journalism. I don’t always have time to read the newspapers daily, however, so sometimes I end up reading stories a few days after they are posted. Thank you for the reminder to check dates more carefully in the future.


      • Paul Deaton says:

        I’m glad you subscribe to newspapers. I’m also glad you read Blog for Iowa. Hope you enjoy today.


Comments are closed.