I am a long time fan of Jeff Greenfield's reporting and commentary, and I find much of value in his skeptical discussion of the Iowa caucuses (several key points were made previously by Chris Hitchens and the NYT, as Jeff properly acknowledges).

I disagree, however, on Jeff's apparent view that secret ballots are an essential constituent of any democratic process. I think there is much to be said in favor of a more deliberative form of democracy, including open proclamations of one's favored candidate or candidates and engaged debates with one's fellow citizens--certainly during the nominating process, if not in the final general election. Too much of our electoral process is (pardon the oxymoron) "deeply superficial", predicated on name recognition and facile impressions left by 30 second, bumper-sticker style commercials (which themselves reflect campaign budgets and the ability to raise large sums early in the campaign). An engaged caucus process has at least the potential to go deeper, and potentially to change minds (and to reinforce habits of democratic citizenship).

There are costs to this approach, and Jeff is right to acknowledge them. Not every jurisdiction has to go this way. But I am glad that some do. Whether it is right that Iowa (so unrepresentative in so many ways) always goes first and has such a disproportionate impact on the overall process (and that it is so rapidly joined by other unrepresentative (and idiosyncratic) primary states as NH and S.Car. is deeply problematic, but I don't think the main problem here is with the "caucus" aspect of things.

More generally, the nomination process seems to have gone mad, and to be on the verge of total collapse (as does, all too often, our entire system of "self-government" in these waning days of failed empire). We should be thinking more seriously about alternative processes for choosing our political leaders (although possession and transmission of leadership as a form of inheritable property--as in the Bhutto family--seems not the way, Oops--leaving aside Bush-Clinton-Bush- Clinton!). But I think we need more and deeper deliberation, not less.

The Wise Bard (YLS 1977)