In 2004, I rooted for a John Edwards victory in the Democratic primaries. I wanted the senator from North Carolina to take his populist-themed message against George W. Bush and his wealthiest 1%.
Disappointment over his primary losses to John Kerry turned to hope when Edwards was added to the ticket as the candidate for vice president. The best of both worlds, perhaps, with the experienced New Englander teaming up with the young, ultra-smooth Southerner poised to take on the Republican machinery.
John Edwards, I believed, would add a great deal to the ticket, particularly because he drew such a striking distinction with Vice President Dick Cheney. I hoped that Edwards would expose Cheney as the driving force behind the rampant malevolence of 2000-2004. The charming, Southern gentleman versus the grumpy, old-boys network crony: how could Edwards lose?
That feeling began to dissipate, however, on October 5, 2004. That evening, at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, a surprising 43.6 million people tuned into the only Vice Presidential Debate of they year, giving Edwards the stage many believed he would thrive on (click here for video).
The results were not as I had hoped. Cheney managed the debate brilliantly, at times portraying a shrewd leader on issues of foreign affairs, at others an "aw shucks" Midwestern charm, and still others lying through his teeth. Edwards looked baffled and shaken, as if he was surprised by Cheney's political tenacity.
My theory then and now holds that Edwards had always been able to navigate political debates with more self-assurance and poise than any opponent he had faced to that point. Cheney simply caught him off guard, and the American people, some of whom were getting their first exposure to Edwards, saw a side that he could not have been happy about.
Post-debate polling showed what I feared while watching. Only 25% of those polled felt that John Edwards would be qualified to assume the presidency compared to nearly twice that many believing the same for Dick Cheney. Victory: Cheney.
Fast forward to 2008. John Edwards has solidified his "Two Americas" platform and is again striking a populist chord among Democrats eager to find a candidate who represents their core values and with whom they can easily identify.
Unlike Hillary Clinton, whose message at times feels vague and Barack Obama, whose popularity surge people are still growing accustomed to, Edwards message comes with an easily interpreted sincerity.
As the above video shows (avail at
), Edwards maintains his at-ease style as well as ever. I can honestly envision this man going door-to-door eschewing his everyman beliefs. His platform is, in a word, believable. The tenet of "Two Americas" that hits home for me is this: one America lives comfortably with inordinate wealth, and one lives on the edge of despair. The latter not only includes the obvious poor and unemployed, but also the huge American middle-class. These are teachers, laborers, middle management, small business entrepreneurs and many others who are one unfortunate circumstance away from despair.
When a medical emergency strikes and insurance does not cover enough of the costs, then what? If your vehicle breaks down and your savings account does not cover repairs, how do you get to work or school?
Those are the types of questions to which Edwards seeks answers, and many Americans can identify.
If Edwards learned from that difficult Cheney debate in 2004, he may just have the opportunity to take his solutions to the ultimate stage: a 2008 showdown against the Republican nominee..
While there is crossover between the socialist and populist doctrines, I do not see a lot of socialist overtones - by the 20th century definition, anyway - in Edwards platform. As Joshua points out, it would be incredibly hypocritical for Edwards to purport a "rob Peter to pay Paul" system, when he, himself, is a major Peter (check out this article from MSN: :::link:::).
The modern populism that Edwards preaches does not attempt to evenly distribute land or wealth, but it seeks to defend the masses against corporate greed in critical areas such as health care (which was also his main focus as a lawyer). Taking on drug and insurance companies will not even the playing fields between millionaires and factory workers, but at least it might keep the factory worker further away from the brink of disaster.
I'm not sure that Edwards is the better candidate than Kucinich. As I wrote about in an earlier entry, Kucinich's clear cut positions on just about every topic are so refreshing, that I can't help but be drawn to him. But thinking in more realistic terms about the Clinton/Obama/Edwards race, I like Edwards' message the best.
Thanks. Much better! Since I am leaning towards Kucinich, can you tell me why John Edwards would be better? Don't feel like you have to answer that, but if you do, I would be interested.
(e:josh), I don't think Socialism is necessarily that bad or a dirty word. There have been and still are many sectors of our economy that are Socialist. Of course that is being broken down, but not necessarily to the people's benefit. Socialism also doesn't necessarily mean that everyone is equal regardless of merit. I'm just saying that economic systems aren't so black and white rather than trying to start a huge debate on which is better.
Edwards' problem, like I had stated in a previous politically oriented entry in my own journal, is that although I think his wealth shouldn't preclude him from speaking up about what he believes in, in the end the "ammo" against him (the haircuts, etc) make it impossible for him to offer credible testimony to the plight of the poor. The bottom line is that he has no idea what it is like to be a poor guy, and if he ever did he's long forgotten. I don't think that he'll ever be able to effectively reconcile any of this, but if he does I'll be the first to stand up and applaud him.
The problem with the "Two Americas" argument in my view is that the implication is that the rich have too much and the poor have too little. This is a clear socialist message, and although there are people in this country that support that kind of thing, suggesting that we should rob Peter to give to Paul will never get him elected. It is not the job of politicians and bureaucrats to determine what exactly is too much for somebody to personally own. I see government taking property or money from one person to give to another who has less as a highly, highly unamerican activity.
I know.... Between the house and the haircuts, he gives his opponents a lot of ammo. But in his defense, he does not deny or shy away from his own wealth, often saying that he considers himself lucky to have the wherewithal to fight for little guy.
This is where I write a somewhat sarcastic comment about the size of the Edwardses' home/compound. Not that that makes him unqualified to preach his populist platform (hey, alliteration!) but for God's sake, man -- a $6m 28,200 sq ft estate? Show some restraint.