Comments on: Grinnell’s special role in Iowa’s quadrennial farce

By: Out-of-state college voters « Meng Bomin

Out-of-state college voters « Meng Bomin — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:51:59 +0000

[...] Though it is unlikely that Obama will be non-viable here in Grinnell 1st Ward (the most delegate rich in the state, with representing about 0.2%), Edwards will be my second [...]

By: poetloverrebelspy

poetloverrebelspy — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:12:44 +0000

I’m sort of amazed at the hostility towards college-aged voters. They meet the residency requirements, period. End of sentence.

I think what *actually* pisses people off is that they EXERCISE their right to vote, unlike the “working men and women of this country . . . [who] know more about what politics actually means to their lives” (if they know, Ann ‘89, is that why they don’t participate?). In any election in Grinnell, town outvotes gown (assuming all students intended to vote in Iowa) 9 to 1 if they show up to the polls. Is it the student body’s fault that voter and caucus turnout is low? Political apathy is another form of “voting”; if the locals were bothered with the results, wouldn’t they begin turning out more regularly?

By: Dana

Dana — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:18:00 +0000

Ann ‘89,

Taken out of context, yes, that quote sounds incredibly egotistical. But I think that within the context of Mike’s whole post, it should be clear that what he is pointing out is that the Grinnell caucusing district is bizarrely swollen with the presence of college students anyway, based on the number of them that vote there. His point is not that the college students know better, it’s that the whole caucus system in Iowa leads to extremely skewed representation of demographics, and gives caucus-goers an inordinate amount of power in the entire nationwide pre-election process.

By: Ann - Grinnell 89'

Ann - Grinnell 89' — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:55:06 +0000

“But the real winner here is the candidate who appeals to those students’ professors, janitors and bartenders. They’re just a few of the bizarre interest groups who will wield way too much power in this year’s presidential election.”

Do you ever stop to listen to yourself?

Janitors and bartenders actually choosing the caucus winner, instead of the enlightened college students?!

You call that bizarre? I call them the working men and women of this country that know the importance of a strong paycheck, good schools for their kids, and security for their parents. They know more about what politics actually means to their lives than any 21 who has never been outside of the cozy world of school.

I’d rather have them choosing the Iowa caucus winner than a bunch of Grinnellians who will run out of Iowa like a bat out of &^%$ within 4 years.

By: Jancey

Jancey — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 01:57:53 +0000

Yeah, I’m a pretty dedicated voter, and I admit that I loved caucus-ing (well, i loved the idea. I agree with many of your above points- in reality i think it’s kind of inefficiently bizarre.), but I don’t think I would come back just to walk to a certain room/designated wall in Bailey Elementary! Maybe they’re trying to sell it as some kind of political love-in slumber party at the PEC.

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 21:14:32 +0000

Thanks, Jancey. (It’s hard to imagine the Dems’ operation drawing a huge number of students, but I’m sure that’ll help.)

By: Jancey

Jancey — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:42:21 +0000

For what it’s worth, I think the College Democrats are working with J. Krohn to be able to come into town, sleep in the PEC, caucus, then leave. Not sure if it came to fruition, but I know the plan was being bounced around when I was there in October.

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 01:53:03 +0000

Most of what I know about the college’s history just comes from Alan Jones’s book, but it seems like the college was a fairly buttoned-down place in the 40s and 50s. Rallies for Nixon, homecoming floats glorifying the atom bomb. There was a big push to raise admission standards in the late 50s (am I right in thinking this was a nationwide thing?) and when the college became a more “merit”-oriented place in the early Vietnam years, it also happened to turn pretty sharply to the left.

Unlike some trustees when I was there (who themselves graduated before that turn to the left), I never thought it made sense to try and admit more conservatives in the name of intellectual diversity. There’s lots of diversity of thought on the “left,” too. But I think having a college Republicans chapter is probably healthy, and I certainly don’t mind honoring Davis.

By: nmac

nmac — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:22:46 +0000

Poetloverrebelspy: Certainly, the history of Grinnell is as you stated. A major belief of Grinnell’s founders was “service” in service to God. They saw their actions as” just the right thing to do.” After all, they were expressing their everyday values in what they said and did. Liberal or conservative were never a part of their vocabulary.
It has only been in recent years with the movement toward “secular progressive” that I have become concerned about what the term “liberal” has become to mean for many people. It is not what Harry Truman or even John Kennedy meant.
For me, the breaking point came with the honoring of Angela Davis, and all she stands for, at last year’s Grinnell commencement. Maybe Grinnell should return to its roots “in service to God”

By: poetloverrebelspy

poetloverrebelspy — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 08:05:37 +0000

nmac, I find it hard to believe that today’s students and faculty are more liberal than the abolitionist Congregationalists who founded the place or all those graduates of the 1910s who went on to become architects of the New Deal. As the politics of this country move further and further right, the campus remains “left of center” — a more conservative place than any time in history. Perhaps you are unaware of the campus Republicans group?

While Grinnell grads go on to do amazing things and to contribute in their multivariate ways to society, very rarely does one find a true liberal (or conservative) radical or architect of major social change.