Iowa Separates the Wheat From the Chaff

THE dust has settled and once again, the voters of Iowa have made their mark on American history.

But before the ink had dried on the final tallies of yesterday's vote, Americans--from voter action groups to political science classes--had voiced their contempt and outrage for the Iowa caucus.

No doubt, many of the criticism of the present nomination system have their merits. On the surface, it seems illogical for such a small population--about 220,000 participating voters in a state with 3 million residents--so apparently unrepresentative of the national constituency--to have such a large impact on the nominating process. To make the contest a caucus, in which "horse-trading" and political bargaining can obscure public opinion, seems even more nonsensical.

Frustrated with the power this "negligible" state has wielded in the past, critics have suggested a slew of reforms, from a national primary to a rotating system of state primaries. With each election year, the people, so convinced of the inadequacies of the Iowa system, seem ever closer to accepting these changes.

But before Americans condemn Iowa and its caucus, they should take a closer look at this week's results. While the final vote had its share of surprises, there is no reason to believe that the Iowa caucuses have single-handedly selected the next Democratic and Republican nominees.

Instead, the caucuses gave definition and interest to a race seriously lacking in either. The Republican voters focused the race on three men--Vice President Bush, Sen. Robert Dole (R.-Kan.), and former evangelist Marion "Pat" Robertson. By demonstrating that the rest of the pack couldn't gather many delegates, the Iowa caucus at least condensed the crowd to the candidates with the greatest popular support.

Iowan Democrats also did their part to trim the nomination race down to a more reasonable size. Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, Rep. Richard Gephardt (D.-Mo.), and Sen. Paul Simon (D.-III.) came out as frontrunners. With a commendable fourth-place showing, Rev. Jesse Jackson proved once and for all that his appeal was not limited to Blacks. Meanwhile, the caucus-goers effectively eliminated two men whose presence only obscured the Democratic field, former Arizona Gov. Bruce Babbitt and former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart. Thanks to the Iowans, the Democratic party can now sport a few candidates who have received someone's stamp of approval besides Snow White's.

This year's caucus shows the importance of an initial testing ground for the candidates, and Iowa is as good a state as any to sponsor this test. A majority of Iowa's population lives in cities, and the per capita income is close to the national average. Over the years, the Iowans have shown themselves to be a people very serious and conscientious about their politics.

With Iowa to take the first step on the campaign road, the rest of America can watch a very informed electorate size up the issues and candidates, without committing an overwhelming amount of delegates--there are only 52 Democratic delegates in Iowa. Were it not for Iowa, Democratic voters would still be floundering with seven indistinguishable candidates. Likewise, the Republican caucus-goers showed the nation that Pat Robertson is a serious candidate--and threat--with a legitimate base of support.

Arguments that the caucus results too rigidly constrain national debate are unfounded. The caucus may trim the fat but it certainly doesn't cut back the beef--indications this year are that all three of the top Democratic runners will maintain momentum for some time to come. With Bush still leading the polls in New Hampshire, Dole's glory ride could be short-lived. Virtually no political experts interviewed by the press would dare make predictions based solely on this week's results.

IF indeed there is a problem with the nomination process, it is not with the Iowa caucus itself. Rather, most of the alleged drawbacks can be traced to the irresponsibility the media. Jimmy Carter's surge of momentum following the 1976 caucus was not the result of a smashing victory; he only beat the closest runner-up by 5 percent. Carter became a force when the media completely refocused on him--and ignored the rest of the pack. In national politics, perception is as important as fact. And in this and many other cases the media created an inaccurate perception.

This year the intensified coverage of Iowa, by both national and local correspondents, let the rest of the nation take Iowa for what it is--the first step in a long nomination process.