Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a mix of national and local commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Last May, Democrats in my home state took the first big step in the systematic demythologizing of an American shibboleth and sacred cow: the Iowa caucuses.

In an era marked by iconoclastic urges and cancel culture, Democratic leaders willingly forfeited the opportunity to host America's first-in-the-nation vote, toppling their own celebratory monument to middle American in-person populism. The move left Iowa Republicans to carry on an increasingly maudlin tradition on Jan. 15.

In advance of the latest iteration of our once-proud event, I find myself wondering how Minnesotans and the rest of the nation would have long-standing Iowans like me feel in the lead-up to caucus night. Should we feel guilt (at our presumed political golden ticket), shame (at our disproportionate political access), self-consciousness (at the ostensible lack of diversity of our caucus participants), or pride at the endurance of such an heirloom folkway?

Should we persist in our stubborn belief in a time-honored in-person process, or distance ourselves from the myth we've helped build brick by brick?

Do we cast our vote for an imperiled political tradition via our faithful attendance, or do we instead vote with our feet, depriving the caucus of its lifeblood: willing participants.

This year's edition of the famed Iowa caucuses offers no easy or comfortable answers.

I confess to growing increasingly uncomfortable in the continuance of the mythos I've helped grow in multiple scholarly articles and in my 2015 political novel, "Corn Poll." I see the many ways in which our caucus perpetuates the myth of our singular virtue and soundness of judgment.

In the popular imagination, caucus night in Iowa surely looks like a scene from some Frank Capra movie, as salt-of-the-earth citizens, roused by an upwelling of patriotic feeling, hash out long-standing political differences via impassioned speeches delivered on behalf of their chosen man or woman. In that dreamy movie version, high-spirited friends and neighbors continue the plucky debate late into the evening, before shuffling off to bed with a renewed faith in democracy. Perhaps a gentle snow falls overnight as the presidential hopefuls fitfully slumber, and everyone wakes the following morning to a slate wiped clean and a purified landscape of promise.

What makes the myth of the Iowa caucuses so hard to let go is the fact that much of it is true. Iowans still do gather face to face in the most unassuming settings to adjudicate the political fates of candidates for the nation's highest office. My hometown of just over 400 souls convenes in a building that was once the town morgue and is now listed in the registry of official polling sites as the comically generic "Gathering Place." Before Gathering Place, we met in the local volunteer firehouse, in whose kitchen election workers unfailingly popped popcorn for us on an old gas stove. Outside observers told us our little corn poll seemed too good to be true, like a fairy tale from some populist gloaming.

But it's also true that our precious electoral unicorn belies appearances. Attendance, which often tallies less than a quarter of registered Iowa Republicans, is paltry. Fiery public speeches made on behalf of candidates are rare in stoical small towns like mine. A caucus night that in the political imagination lasts well into the wee hours often wraps in real life in less time than it takes to stream a sitcom.

We come, we listen to a few brief but meaningful words, we write the name of our preferred candidate on a slip of bright white office paper, and we leave in less than 20 minutes, sometimes without introducing ourselves to newcomers or greeting longtime neighbors. Meanwhile, the results of our straw poll have often been inaccurate, missing or otherwise marred by controversy, as in 2012 when the Iowa caucuses were rocked by charges of voting irregularities in a contest initially declared for Mitt Romney, only to be called two weeks later in favor of Rick Santorum.

Despite a sometimes dubious track record, the essential promise of caucus night holds true: anything can happen. Dark horse hopefuls, those dutiful door-knockers and proponents of visiting all of Iowa's 99 counties in the strategy known as "The Full Grassley," can and do overtake pre-anointed candidates in a photo-finish too close to call until the following morning. Acts of political skulduggery persist in the form of 11th-hour text messages and calls from anxious campaigns looking to cast shade or inculcate doubt.

Iowa Republicans' unilateral decision to continue the political spectacle this year without the Democrats will surely mean decreased media coverage of a fixture in the electoral calendar. That much is regrettable, as this year's Iowa caucuses will serve as the most concrete measure yet of Donald Trump's potential viability as the Republican nominee. Regardless of how the rest of the nation feels about Iowans as electoral gatekeepers, this year's corn poll bears close watching.

Zachary Michael Jack is a writer, teacher and historian in Oxford Junction, Iowa.