Presidential prominence has political side effects in Iowa

Iowa's caucuses are taking their quadrennial media beating.

I've read several pieces over the last week or so arguing that Iowa should not lead the presidential primary train. We're too white, too rural, too small. Our status is unfair. The pack of Iowans who show up to caucus is compact, quirky and often chooses poorly.

Some of the criticism is fair. Some less so. None of it is surprising or terribly new. But the common thread is that Iowa's leadoff caucuses have inflicted harm on the nation's politics.

But the truth is, the caucuses and the accompanying circus haven't been all sunshine and rainbows for Iowa, either. Presidential politics has altered Iowa politics in ways that aren't all positive. The often pungent, divisive rancor of presidential battles lingers heavy in the air here long after the candidates have jetted on to New Hampshire.

A lot of the folks who wage our state and local campaigns are trained in those pitched partisan battles, or are drawn here with hopes of eventually getting a taste of the big-time presidential sweepstakes. Our candidates, parties, lawmakers and “kingmakers” receive piles of campaign cash and attention from big names with national ambitions and outside groups hoping to affect the national debate.

Both would-be presidential candidates and interest groups are jockeying hard for key local allies that can be tapped when the caucus campaign intensifies. Those power struggles can leave some scars.

Just this past week, state Sen. Kent Sorenson, R-Indianola, who led Michele Bachmann's Iowa campaign, jumped abruptly to Ron Paul's team. Bachmann claims the senator was paid to switch. He denies it. It was the second pay-for-endorsement allegation leveled in a week. And it's hardly a new phenomenon, nor is it confined to one party.

Against that backdrop. it's no surprise that so many of our state issues take on the tenor and sharp edges of national power politics. Same-sex marriage is a good, recent example. Certainly, Iowa's court ruling legalizing same-sex unions was a national story, no matter where it happened. But the state's presidential clout played a significant role in what happened next.

The judicial retention fight was sparked by the ruling, but the campaign's intensity was stoked by individuals and groups eager to flex political muscle ahead of the caucuses. Some potential GOP White House candidates weighed in loudly, hoping to impress. Outside groups probably would have gotten involved anyway, but Iowa's presidential role clearly raised the stakes. If the volume of Iowa's marriage debate was an 8 under normal circumstances, our caucus connection turned it up to 11.

State Senate District 18, subject of a special election in November, is another example of caucus influences spilling into a local race. Bachmann, Ann Romney and a Values Voter Bus carrying national anti-gay marriage activists all played bit parts or supporting roles in the expensive Senate race.

Maybe Iowa's Republican Party was always destined to go from the party dominated by Bob Rays to one steered by Bob Vander Plaatses. But it's tough to argue that caucus politics didn't accelerate the transformation.

I'm not suggesting that the negatives have outweighed the political positives for Iowa. And for all the grousing about the caucuses, the nation is still watching. But the cost-benefit balance is changing.

It used to be that Iowans could tolerate the excesses of presidential campaigning in exchange for the valuable attention the caucuses shined on important Iowa issues that would otherwise be ignored. But with caucus campaigning now being largely driven by national issues and a national media narrative, that fringe benefit seems to be fading. The scale of influence seems to have tipped away from the Iowa cafe and toward the cable news debate stage.

So maybe Iowa doesn't look like the rest of the nation. But thanks, in part, to the caucuses, our politics does.