First and Worst: Critically Examining the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary

Recently, there has been much discussion as to whether or not it makes sense for the first two presidential primaries to be held in Iowa and New Hampshire.

As someone who grew up in New Hampshire, I've seen a lot of animosity directed at my state throughout this discussion. There has been this sense that the state is too homogenous to warrant a say in national politics. That people live here in silos, unaware of the plight of large segments of the population. That children growing up here don't have a sense of what other children experience in more diverse communities. That somehow growing up in a state like New Hampshire makes one unprepared for the larger challenges that life may throw at them. It is accusations like these that truly sting the soul of someone who grew up in New Hampshire and I could not hold in my silence any further.

Because all of these things are unequivocally true.

New Hampshire is not at all representative of the country as a whole. By race. By faith. By education level. By socio-economic status. It's where affluent, White suburban parents move to ensure that they don't pay sales or income tax while ensuring that their children attend well-funded public schools. There is no public transit. Outside of a handful of cities, there are no taxis. The local mall is called "the mall" and everyone knows what you're talking about. The cultural capital of Manchester is referred to as "Manch-vegas" because having more than a handful of bars make it a happenin' place. The University of New Hampshire is referred to as "13th grade" because it will be the major draw for all recent high school graduates. The local police reports will inevitably include a stray cow. The local weatherman is a celebrity. And nearly every small town will have some sort of Old Home Day celebration that traces its history back to New England Puritan roots.

Now, don't get me wrong. It's a great place to raise a family. After all, I was afforded many opportunities because of where and how I grew up. I had access to enrichment classes starting in 4th grade and my public high school class sent students to Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Penn, and the University of Chicago among others. There was no violent crime so we kids roamed free on our bikes and played tag until dark at the local condominium complex. It was an ideal launching spot for family vacations being 3 hours away from hiking in the White Mountains, 3 hours away from the Cape and the islands, 3 hours away from camping in Maine, and 3 hours away from the Canadian border. By the time we all could drive, we knew that we were less than an hour away from taking the "T" into Boston and spending a day in the city. 

But as much as the experience set me on a forward track to success, it also set me back in terms of relating to others outside my New Hampshire bubble. I struggled during my freshman year of college making friends at my private liberal arts college in North Carolina. I was socially awkward to start with, but when my peers began relaying their experiences growing up, I realized how much I had been missing out on. More than the simple rural/urban divide, I found that my own lack of experiences had left me with an inability to understand where other people were coming from. I didn't have any close friends of color growing up. I didn't have any LGBTQ friends. I didn't have a full appreciation for those who pursued art, or music, or theater. I didn't have any friends who even considered military service and now I was thrust into a world with a prevalent ROTC population who knew that military service was their only way out. I couldn't even define my own politics because other than my parents, I had no adults in my home state whose politics I could begin to understand. And having never attended religious services, I couldn't identify with those whose faith was a pillar of their everyday life. 

I had to learn these things over time and it was gradual exposure first as a college student and then as a teacher in low-income communities that I finally began to see what was meant by this whole "inequality" thing. Growing up, I couldn't even tell you where the poor side of town was. It wasn't until I began teaching that I saw a clear divide between the haves and the have-nots. Where I saw that student resources were being unevenly distributed across the district. Where I saw the socio-economic impacts on a child's learning that prevented him or her from reaching their potential in school. Where I saw that "troubled" students were only troubled because they simply had never had someone truly connect with them as a human being. It took teaching in this environment for me to realize just how privileged I had been and just how fortunate I had been to grow up somewhere like New Hampshire. 

The fears and worries of those in New Hampshire are real. You'll hear concerns around health care and minimum wage and reproductive rights at any town hall in the state. But what you won't hear about is the issues that are critical to people of color. Issues about environmental racism, voting rights, and systemic abuses of our criminal justice system. You won't hear about these concerns because the voices of those most impacted are not present at the table. These are larger, systemic issues that each and every Democratic candidate for president can and should be addressing. However, by placing a premium on states like Iowa and New Hampshire, these issues are relegated to the back burner. National debates are avoiding these topics and town halls fail to bring them up time and time again. When that happens, when issues that affect our most vulnerable populations are ignored, it gives an unfair advantage to candidates who may do well on "kitchen table issues" but who struggle to get down into the nitty-gritty and have those difficult conversations around race, privilege, and our country's original sin.

It's a shame that in the most diverse democracy in the world, we essentially let our democratic process become usurped by two tiny, insignificant states. We do this time and time again, adhering to a 50-year-old tradition that bears no significance in the 21st century. The argument is that Iowa and New Hampshire test a candidate's ability to make a name for himself or herself on a personal, one-to-one scale. Visiting all of Iowa's 99 counties is seen as a badge of honor. Having your picture up on any number of small New Hampshire diners is supposed to give you instant credibility. But at the end of the day, each house party, each small restaurant visit the candidates make, says more about the homogenous voters than it does the candidates. These voters only care about their local issues and these local issues aren't reflective of thise issues faced by the people of color who proudly make up the Democratic base. Instead of discussing a broad, in-depth plan for criminal justice reform in a diverse state like Illinois, presidential candidates are forced to discuss the virtues of ethanol in Iowa for six months straight. That conversation alone is one that disproportionately affects a minuscule percentage of the population and is one that only becomes an issue every four years because of our twisted political system.

The argument in favor of this antiquated system is, of course, Barack Obama. If a mixed-race senator from Illinois can win Iowa and become competitive in New Hampshire then it's possible for anyone. Yet 2008 was a year with a small Democratic field. Had Obama been in a field with nearly 20 candidates, it is very unlikely that he would have excelled in the way that he did. For America to have a truly democratic process, states other than Iowa and New Hampshire need to lead the way. Of course, this will be met with resistance. But as Americans, we need to ask ourselves this: who do we want electing our nominee? Do we want a process that favors two homogenous states at the onset or do we want a process that truly represents the 21st-century diversity in our country? If the answer is the latter, how much longer can we wait? How many strong 2020 candidates are we losing because of this skewed process? And when will all Americans, including those in New Hampshire and Iowa, realize that their voices, although important, don't speak for all 330 million of us?

Both Iowa and New Hampshire are unlikely to willingly abandon their positions. After all, the candidate visits are a boom for the local economies. But at some point, the process has to be changed. Democrats saw a 2016 candidate receive an overinflated primary bump after barely losing Iowa and winning New Hampshire handily. This candidate then lost the Nevada caucus and got crushed in South Carolina. Imagine if the first primary had been South Carolina with its base of Democratic voters that looks like the base of the Democratic Party. The 2016 presidential primary would have been over even sooner than it was and the runner-up would have had no logical way to contest the results. If a candidate can't connect with the Democratic base then he or she should never, ever come within a stone's throw of the party's nomination.

Primary dates are set by state parties and the United States has a consistent habit of following traditions, even when those traditions don't make a whole lot of sense. Having Iowa and New Hampshire vote first is like putting on your winter coat before your jeans: it can be done, sure, but it definitely isn't the best way to do it. Allowing these two homogeneous states to attain unearned political clout by being the gatekeepers for all national elections is a farce of epic proportions and is one that we saw in 2016 can have disastrous consequences. I love my home state of New Hampshire but a tiny state of 1 million people that is 93% White should not have the ability to determine who is a viable political candidate when there are other states that would offer so much more to the democratic process. I would easily support this move as it could help us save our floundering democracy by giving power back to the states that actually look like the country as a whole.

And I know I'm not the only person from New Hampshire who has this view.