by Damozel | As a Democrat, I'm quite bemused by the neglect of John Edwards among liberal bloggers, including myself. Of the candidates, he is without question the most progressive. When he speaks, I feel that visceral affirmation; he says things that I believe to be true.
For example, it is demonstrably true that the system is currently designed to funnel money upward, enriching a comparatively small group of people, while people like me are virtually enslaved to our jobs, not only to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table, but to ensure that we and our loved ones have access to health care when we need it and can manage to go on doing so once we reach retirement age.
He might be a rich guy himself, but he genuinely seems to understand how oppressive the current system is, not only to the poor and disenfranchised, but to hard-working, hard-pressed middle class people like me. So why is Edwards, as this ad acknowledges, the underdog among the top three Dems? What does this even mean?
Is it that, at heart, we don't
believe that someone with his extremely progressive agenda can win? Why do I not speak out
more often in favor of John Edwards (for whom I fully intend to vote in
the primary). It's his message that really resonates for me. Why am I holding back.
Here's the latest campaign emailed newsletter from the Edwards campaign, speaking of messages that resonate:.
I don't believe you can sit around a table with the drug companies, the insurance companies or the oil corporations, negotiate with them - and then hope they'll just voluntarily give their power away. You can't nice them to death - it doesn't work.
They'll only give their power away when we take it away. As president, I will fight these powerful corporate interests, stand-up to them - and beat them. Help me in that fight. (Edwards campaign)
Do I agree with this, or do I agree only up to a point? More and more---and not to sound pathetically guileless and naive--it appears to me that Edwards is right; the only way to correct the imbalances in the system is by quick and ruthless action. This, as a progressive, is what I believe. But it is also what, as a moderate Democrat, I am afraid of.
I admit that there is a sense of lingering loyalty to Hillary, and the same bedazzlement over Obama that anyone who sees or hears him must feel. Besides: "America has a long history of white men in charge," said one of my friends in England. "You need to mix it up a bit at this point." But "reverse discrimination" surely isn't a good reason for making the call based on "diversity" if in fact the white guy is the most progressive and the least in the pocket of corporate interests. Is it?
Regarding Hillary---and this has nothing to do with the debate, but with the things she says and does---I concede that I have a growing sense that her administration would, at best, give us Clinton v.2. As D Cupples has pointed out, Clinton v.2 would be so much an improvement over what we have now, that it certainly will feel like a return to the light. But is that the best that we can do? Shouldn't I be asking myself much more urgently than I've been willing to do where I want to see the country go?
There's a part of me that fears that Edwards, compared to Obama, would be too polarizing and lead to more years of furious partisan politics. I am a moderate democrat and my religion teaches the value of debate and persuasion to build consensus. Paul Krugman has argued recently that polarization is the only way that we can possibly get out of the quagmire into which Bush has led us. Am I giving too much weight to the ability of the candidates to build bipartisan support or to be afraid of an administration that would be as ruthless as the Bush administration in ignoring the wishes and concerns of people who didn't vote for it? Or would Edwards actually be less polarizing than, say, Hillary Clinton?
As a trial lawyer, Edwards knows how to persuade and to build consensus. This isn't how he has gone about this campaign; instead, he's shown plenty of anger and outrage. As I've said before, his anger is compelling. But it is also frightening and maybe, slightly, off-putting. Under his geniality, you feel the messianic drive. This ought to be a good thing, but we've had many years of being taught by the media to distrust passion and to go with the person who smiles, who doesn't make too many promises.
I ask myself why I haven't fully committed to Edwards, despite my determination to vote for him. And I think it's exactly that: a basic mistrust of even the "good" politicians (i.e., the ones on my side), a suspicion that the brighter the light of righteousness seems to burn within them, the more likely they are to have feet of clay. I don't want to wake up feeling stupid or wake up feeling I've been had or hearing the jeers and catcalls of the opposition. Which is a very sad reflection on the state of the body politic and the credibility of politicians generally, as well as on my own cynicism.
In the meantime, Edwards is vowing to stay in the race straight through to the convention, even if he doesn't come first in any of the primaries.
"This is the call of my life, and I have no intention of stopping," Edwards said on ABC's This Week. "I'm in this through the convention and to the White House."
Asked specifically if he'd remain a candidate even if he failed to garner a win over the next month, Edwards said, "Absolutely." (Political Ticker)
RELATED BN-POLITICS POSTING
- Krugman on the Impossible Dream
- Paul Krugman: "Progressives, to Arms!" A Call for More...Partisanship?
- John Edwards: Congress Thinks that Universal Health Care is Necessary (for Congress)
- The Cost of Health Care for the Seriously Ill: A Survivor Speaks to the Edwards Campaign
- The Angrier Edwards is a Strangely Compelling Edwards...
- Chris Cillizza, John Edwards: Mad as Hell (The Fix)
Comments