Grass-Roots Activists Rule in Iowa

So who's going to win the Iowa caucuses tonight?

History tells us that the winner will be the candidate of the base -- that is, the candidate who most appeals to the hard-core activists, those determined folk who have the patience for a lengthy public nose-counting session at a caucus site, as opposed to a quick dash in and out of a voting booth.

So Iowa caucusers concern themselves with ideological purity -- while, on the other hand, New Hampshire primary voters worry more about November electability. That's the thesis of Christopher Hull, adjunct professor at Georgetown University, as set forth in his new book, "Grassroots Rules: How the Iowa Caucus Helps Elect Presidents." Hull, for all his scholarship, is no ivory tower-ite; he grew up in the rough-and-tumble of Hawkeye State politics.

In an interview, Hull cited historical precedents, including the 1984 Democratic caucuses, won by Walter Mondale, and the 2000 Republican caucuses, won by George W. Bush.

In both cases, the grass roots ruled. That is, Iowa activists winnowed through the candidates, awarding caucus victory to the most "true blue" of the presidential hopefuls -- or, if one prefers, "true red."

Hull quips that party stalwarts on both sides apply the IAAAT, or Iowa Activist Authenticity Acid Test. But of course, for activists, such tests are no laughing matter -- because it's their party.

And so back in '84, for example, Mondale, a former vice president, was the obvious ace of the base. But while his long-standing liberalism was a turn-on to Democratic activists, it was a turnoff to moderates and independents -- which was exactly the argument made by Sen. John Glenn of Ohio, one of Mondale's rivals for the nomination that year.

Glenn was a war hero and a centrist, as well as a famous astronaut; there's little doubt he would have been a stronger nominee for the Democrats than Mondale. But Iowa activists didn't care -- and Glenn finished fifth, garnering a mere 4 percent of the vote.

But of course, Iowa is not the whole of the nomination process. And so, Mondale, after winning Iowa in 1984, faced a stiff challenge in New Hampshire from the telegenic Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado. Like Glenn, Hart was undoubtedly a stronger general-election candidate than Mondale, who was seen, even by his supporters, as dull.

Yet, Hart's broader appeal had not impressed Iowa caucusers; the Coloradan came in a distant second behind Mondale. But just a week later, Hart did hit the sweet spot of New Hampshire primary voters. In the end, of course, Mondale called in all his party-insider chits and won the Democratic nomination -- only to be clobbered by Ronald Reagan in the general election.

Over on the Republican side, the 2000 Iowa caucuses proved the same point: Purity trumps electability. Sen. John McCain of Arizona was another war hero with a strong maverick following. But by the same token, McCain was much mistrusted by Iowa activists. So the Iowa winner that year was George W. Bush, son of a former president.

In keeping with Hull's model, McCain went on to win in electability-oriented New Hampshire. Eventually, of course, Bush overtook McCain for the '00 nomination -- although he barely eked out a November election, which McCain probably would have won handily.

And so what of this year? Hull's analysis helps explain why Rudy Giuliani, for example, was wise to stay mostly out of Iowa -- because he and his social liberalism would have been whacked by social-conservative Hawkeyes. But according to this logic, Giuliani was foolish also to downplay New Hampshire, because Granite Staters hunger for someone with his kind of middle-ground appeal.

OK, knowing all that, who's going to win Iowa? On the eve of the caucuses, Hull conceded that both races are too close to call. But watch the activists tonight, because in Iowa, the grass roots always rule.