AMAC Exclusive – By Andrew Abbott
Despite promising to be the “most progressive” president in American history, largely fulfilling that pledge, and filling his administration with bona fide left-wing radicals, President Joe Biden has nonetheless struggled to appease the leftist fringe of his party. Now, it appears that for the purposes of his own renomination, at least, Biden may be trying to sideline progressives rather than convince them. This is seemingly the obvious implication of the Democratic National Committee’s shocking move to reorganize the Democratic presidential primary calendar for the first time in decades.
In an announcement earlier this month, the DNC officially removed Iowa and New Hampshire from their coveted status as the first primary and caucus states in the Democratic primary schedule, instead handing the first-in-the-nation primary spot to South Carolina – the state that salvaged Biden’s dying campaign in 2020 and sent him on a path to the Democratic nomination. The news is a significant blow to residents in Iowa and New Hampshire, which have long enjoyed the attention from the media and candidates that comes along with hosting the first contests.
Activists have pressed the Democratic Party to reorganize the primary calendar for years, asserting that the traditional model of Iowa and New Hampshire voting first is “racist” because these states are disproportionately white relative to the Democrat Party’s primary base. Biden hinted his support for changing which state goes first ahead of the decision, saying, “For decades, Black voters, in particular, have been the backbone of the Democratic Party but have been pushed to the back of the early primary process.” He went on to recommend abolishing all caucuses as well. The 2020 Democratic Iowa Caucus was plagued by technical issues that resulted in the final vote tallies being delayed for several days.
But while the far-left of the Democrat Party has applauded Biden for leading the decision to reorganize the primary calendar, the “racial justice” rhetoric may in fact be convenient cover for the Democrat establishment to dilute the influence of progressive voters in the primary; in recent history, both Iowa and New Hampshire voters have supported more progressive candidates viewed as having less of a chance to prevail in a general election.
In 2020, Bernie Sanders won both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, with Biden finishing 4th in Iowa and 5th in New Hampshire.
Four years earlier in 2016, Sanders walloped eventual nominee Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire and came in second to her by a mere 0.3% of the vote in Iowa. In both cases, the party establishment was forced to throw all its weight behind Clinton and Biden in order to avoid what they viewed as the disaster scenario of the socialist Sanders winning the nomination.
After Biden’s poor performance in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2020, political insiders predicted that Joe Biden would drop out of the race soon. One Vanity Fair reporter infamously predicted that Biden would be the “Jeb Bush of 2020.”
With his path to victory narrowing, Biden went to South Carolina and pleaded with Black Democrat leaders to stand by him and resurrect his campaign. He successfully secured a critical endorsement from South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn and was able to carry the state with 48.7% of the overall vote, saving his campaign.
Seen in this context, Democrats’ decision to make South Carolina the first primary state appears to be less about “diversity” and more about ensuring that Biden begins 2024 with built-in protection against any potential primary challenge. In another more cynical light, South Carolina enjoying the attention of first-in-the-nation status is a “reward” for backing Biden, while New Hampshire and Iowa are being “punished” for backing more radical candidates.
Yet after acquiescing to progressive policy demands for decades and elevating one radical after another to key positions of power, Democrats may find that changing the order of primary dates does little in the long term to salvage what’s left of the party’s credibility as a mainstream political force.
Andrew Abbott is the pen name of a writer and public affairs consultant with over a decade of experience in DC at the intersection of politics and culture.
