in defense of caucuses

I was explaining the Iowa caucuses to my kids last night, and one of them said, “We should do that here.”

“Why?” I asked.

“Because it would make people say what they believe. Own their choice, and say it out loud.”

Keep in mind this is the same child who largely orients his social life around the mantra, “Snitches get stitches.”

My son vacillates between admiring blind loyalty that overlooks or even defends destructive choices, and respecting those who speak up, even when it is hard, unpopular or appears to be disloyal. This week, as the 2020 Election cycle officially begins, as the Senate votes on whether or not to remove an impeached president from office, and as the State of the Union will be given, his conflicting ideologies are relevant—even representative—of the choice before us. 

As a country, we face a fundamental debate:

Do we reward or punish those who raise concerns (especially if they challenge powerful people)?

My son’s conception of the world, his social circles and his understanding of perceived value, lead him to think loyalty trumps honesty. His view of the world is primarily defensive, so that he sees most adults as ‘the worst’, as faceless people who want to control or diminish his freedom. His buddies, on the other hand, are his comrades, whose absolute loyalty validates his significance in the world. For him, a kid prone to pushing boundaries, a friend who criticizes his choice is likely to be diminished into a distant acquaintance, if not an enemy. The “snitches get stitches” ideology elevates comprehensive loyalty to the highest possible level; indeed, a betrayal becomes the offensive act rather than the misdeed that prompted the criticism. In this conception, the betrayal of a friend practically absolves the person who committed the bad act, casting him as a victim rather than a possible offender.

Since my son is a young teenager, I am understandably concerned that my president seems to guided by the same principle. The idea that wrongdoing can be overlooked, or even excused, if a friend or subordinate illuminates the misdeed, is deeply problematic. We cannot link morality with loyalty. Raising a complaint cannot be more offensive than the cause for the complaint. We cannot cry foul when a person speaks up without considering their perspective. My son’s behavior does not miraculously or retroactively become innocent if a friend tells on him. As any parent will argue, a kid should be held accountable for suspect actions without regard for who ratted him out.

Our country is split on who we are, on how government represents us, and on what liberty guarantees for whom. For republican thinkers, the impeachment trial is experienced as the culmination of a misguided and targeted campaign to undermine and damage a leader liberal elites don’t like. Most democratic-leaning folks understand the President’s selfish, corrupt and bullying actions as entirely consistent with who he has proven to be in his tenure as leader of the free world. Every citizen is certainly entitled to her interpretation of the facts thus far presented in the public domain. The problem I highlight here is not about the spin various parties apply to a certain moment; instead, I take issue with the idea that the perception of a betrayal supersedes any other misdeed as the most egregious problem. The President’s central defense seems to be that the whistleblower, those who testified, and those who held the impeachment hearings are enemies of the state, traitors who should be ignored or convicted. Whether the alarm is sounded by a loyalist, an enemy, a whistleblower or a career public servant, a just democracy demands scrutiny and investigation when concerns are raised.

In a week in which blame for our divided country seems to be placed at the feet of those who spoke up when they witnessed actions that violated their sense of right and wrong, the Iowa caucuses remind us of a different version of America. Reporting debacle notwithstanding, caucuses are built on an ethic that values transparency and open commitment.

This week offers us an opportunity to evaluate our notions of loyalty and patriotism as we sit in the shadow of a looming election. Will we be people who demand loyalty, forfeiting honest feedback in order to protect our status quo? Will we allow adolescent instincts to silence dissent or ethical concerns? Just as we should not let an accusation destroy a presidency, we cannot allow a critique to be killed on the altar of perceived disloyalty.

Even as Iowa reports 0% of their precincts, the existence of caucuses highlight open disclosure as a key element for communities who value democracy, justice or equity. Whether we dislike the perspective or call the speaker a traitor, we cannot respect a power that chooses to silence dissent or critique rather than considering the merits of their case. A grownup approach instead respects challenging voices for having the courage to speak up and, in the words of my young teenage son, to “say what they believe, and own their choice.”