What's Wrong With John Edwards
Okay, Pinko et al, here are some not fully-baked thoughts on Edwards and why my loyalty will likely lie elsewhere when the time comes:
When in the course of modern American politics has populism or righteous anger ever netted anything more than disappointment? Jennings Bryant was a failure. For all of his trust-busting talk, Theodore Roosevelt fell far short of his promise. Debs never got more than 6% of the popular vote in his runs for President. Malcolm X and Bobby Kennedy were gunned down before they could effect change. Nader has become at best a gadfly.
On the other hand, look how far LBJ got by working the system, MLK got with his platform of non-violence, and so on. Hell, look what Reagan netted with his inspirational, inclusive rhetoric.
When in the course of modern American politics has populism or righteous anger ever netted anything more than disappointment? Jennings Bryant was a failure. For all of his trust-busting talk, Theodore Roosevelt fell far short of his promise. Debs never got more than 6% of the popular vote in his runs for President. Malcolm X and Bobby Kennedy were gunned down before they could effect change. Nader has become at best a gadfly.
On the other hand, look how far LBJ got by working the system, MLK got with his platform of non-violence, and so on. Hell, look what Reagan netted with his inspirational, inclusive rhetoric.
Labels: Politics
posted by isaacjosephson at 8:54 PM
7 Comments:
Slightly problematic for me to just label him a populist and show how populists tend to fair poorly. And why you even included Reagan is beyond me. He's more than a populist - he is not going to buck "the system" entirely - he is talking about bucking the recent system (and yes I know lobbyists have been around longer, but since Reagan the lobbying machine has become a whole other force, arguably a 5th branch of govt. and since lobbysits usually run the agencies and Congress, that gives them 3 out of 5.) I guarantee you that O and C will not be able to do anything about health care, the environment or labor standards due to their lobbysists. Edwards is not Nader, don't be so quick to label him as big media has done.
Wait - I have more - the babies were crying before so i couldn't think straight. If I read your post correctly you are saying we shouldn't be angry or support an angry candidate b/c Americans tend to like happy go lucky candidates even if they are screwing them behind the rhetoric (a la Reagan)? As for MLK, different platform, different method - I think the man was awesome but it's not the only way to go. There comes a point in every system where anger finally takes over, maybe you think we aren't quite there yet. I disagree. I have lobbied in DC and I have seen first hand how this country is governed. It is not democracy and this is something to be very very angry about. Or, we could pick the inspirational candidate and watch our Founders' system continue to unravel under the powerful sway of corporate money. And I suppose this is where I earn my moniker...:)
-pinks
Yeah, my kids were screaming while I was posting too. Kind of makes it hard to think.
My point is that in the past 110 years, we've made more substantial political progress when we can inspire or affably cajole people into moving in the right direction.
Maybe it's the rhetorician in me, but I just don't see how you get an entire country on board when you attack an issue head-on. Edwards (and all other populists) are inherently divisive.
And forget about the general public for a moment. What about the media? There's a firewall that no populist or politician full of righteous anger will ever breach. Look what they did to Dean in '04.
Eventually the people revolt. Eventually. Let's just hope it is not too late. No substainable political progress will be made without taking on the corporate lobby. It just won't. In the past maybe there was still some form of democracy at work. There is not anymore. I agree that Americans (most) would rather not think about the hard questions and would much rather vote for the sweet happy candidate that promises them apple pie. But that won't happen forever - when things get bad enough people get angry. If there were ever a time when anger seemed appropriate, it is now, in my opinion. You may be right in terms of what the masses and/or the media are thinking (I was never good at that) but I guarantee you that practical tangible results will not come forth from a lobbyists' administration. It will be better than the last 8 years, sure, but not real and lasting change, just marginal concessions. The environment is still a ticking time bomb and we will all still have to fight with insurance companies pretty much every day.
I'm not saying we can't take all of that on. I'm saying the best way to do it is through inspiration of the public and cajoling of Washington rather than through hand-to-hand combat. This is what attracts me to Obama.
that's why my dream would be obama with edwards as his running mate. any chance that would/could happen?
In re: Obama/Edwards... I like the idea, but I think it unlikely. More likely, Obama would want to add someone with military/foreign policy experience to his ticket.
I'm curious, though, whether Obama would consider putting some Republicans in his Cabinet (yes, I'm being hopeful that he will have a Cabinet) and put a little of his bipartisanship into practice.
Post a Comment
<< Home