Edwards, Huckabee & The Rise of Iowa's Huey Longs

There's something happening in Iowa - something that the media has not yet fully caught onto. Ever so quietly, economic populism may be trumping the importance of campaign bank accounts and celebrity in both parties. Ever so quietly, two candidates emulating the best of Huey Long's legacy are emerging as strong contenders in the quest for the presidential nomination, as my new nationally syndicated newspaper column out today details. And that is a good thing not just for those contenders - but for class-unifying progressive politics in general.

This story, which centers around former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards (D), is only now starting to seep out.

On the Democratic side, this dynamic is probably the most intense. Reuters just today publishes a story headlined "Iowa Voters Take Democrats to Task Over Jobs," noting that trade and globalization are becoming more and more prevalent on the campaign trail. This is likely to be fueled by the fact that Sens. Hillary Clinton (D) and Barack Obama (D) have both come out for the Peru Free Trade Agreement - the controversial bill that expands the NAFTA trade model. It is also likely to be fueled by Clinton surrounding herself with more and more Wall Street titans.

This is truly a battle between what I have called the Money Party and People Party - and it is happening right within the Democratic Party. As the New York Times reports this morning, those inside the Democratic Party pushing this NAFTA-style trade policy are "getting sizable campaign contributions from the sectors that are benefiting the most from the global economy" including "financial services firms, computer chip makers and other high-tech manufacturers." Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY), who is the architect of this deal, basically admitted as much, telling CNN after the vote that if you are a worker who is struggling right now, "if you're hurting, then [the Peru agreement] is a bad deal."

Of course, Rangel should be thanked for his candor - at least he's being honest. The same can't be said for the invisible culture of corruption that I wrote about a few weeks ago and that continues to plague Democrats - the one where former Clinton administration officials who are now corporate lobbyists preen around (with significant media assistance) as supposedly disinterested statesmen as they push trade deals that benefit their business clients. Just today, corporate lawyer Stuart Eizenstat, a former Clinton official, is quoted in the New York Times essentially Wall Street that the next Democratic president will still be for NAFTA-style trade policy. "I think if a Democratic president comes in, Democrats will take a broader view of trade than Democrats can in Congress right now," he said, with the Times of course not mentioning that he has a financial stake in pushing these deals.

This is precisely what Edwards has been railing on, not only in his specific critique of NAFTA-style trade policies, but in his general critique of lobbyists and the status quo.

But this dynamic is also playing out on the Republican side as well, as evidenced by new polls out this week showing the populist Huckabee continuing to surge - a phenomenon that continues to frighten the corporate cronies who populate the Republican Party apparatus in Washington. You'll remember that the recent Wall Street Journal survey showed that Republican voters now strongly oppose America's lobbyist-written trade and globalization policies - and thus Huckabee's populist critique is gaining traction, as I warned just a few months ago. That goes not only for Republican presidential politics, but also for GOP congressional politics, too. Check out this story on the Peru Free Trade Agreement from the Cleveland Plain Dealer today:

"So why would [Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH)] oppose today's less controversial [Peru] agreement after supporting the more controversial one a few years ago? Some might think he's trying to boost his standing with the labor movement in Northeast Ohio as he approaches a potentially tough re-election challenge next year. But LaTourette put it this way: 'My fear is that this new agreement might actually weaken rather than strengthen enforcement of labor provisions, which was supposed to be the bill's big selling point,' he said through a spokesman."

LaTourette, of course, is correct - as a Columbia University study shows, the Peru pact and other NAFTA expansions like it could actually weaken protections for workers. But what's more politically interesting is that we now have at least some endangered Republicans actually voting more in defense of American workers than many Democrats. That signals that the issues of trade, corporate power and Washington corruption are truly transcending the parties as the 2008 presidential election heats up - especially true as plant closings continue to ravage Iowa and New Hampshire.

A year and a half ago, I wrote an article for In These Times predicting that trade, globalization and economic inequality would become some of the most important and decisive issues in the 2008 presidential primaries. Frankly, I had no idea the dynamics would be as intense as they are, what with two candidates campaigning so vigorously on working-class issues and with congressional votes to actually expand the NAFTA trade model. But the fact that these issues are becoming so important is really encouraging, regardless of which candidate you support. These are the issues that will determine the course of our country's economic future - and having them be debated in a presidential election setting is a good thing, indeed.

Go read the full column here - and stay tuned in the coming weeks to see what happens. And if you'd like to see my column regularly in your local paper, use this directory to find the contact info for your local editorial page editors. Get get in touch with them and point them to my Creators Syndicate site.

UPDATE: Under the headline "Edwards to Hit Rivals on Trade," ABC News is now reporting that "Edwards is set to pounce on his rivals' support of a free-trade deal with Peru, as he seeks to exploit an opening on an issue that speaks to growing concerns about the economy and the impact of globalization." Hang on tight, folks - the '08 ride is just about to begin.

Comments

[Mariel]

This blogger speaks for my opinion as well as for Iowa. I like Edwards among the so-called front runners and will be happy to cast my vote for him. I also like Chris Dodd, the only Dem to want to close the borders to the satisfaction of Lou Dobbs (although Dobbs must find something wrong with Dodd, because he hasn't endorsed him). In the Repub camp, I like Huckabee and possibly Paul, although Paul may want to dismantle government in a way which could leave us weak at a crucial time. I would vote for either Edwards or Huckabee, as Iowa may. How could I go "both ways"? I have always been a populist first and foremost, an anti-elitist, and I see these guys as populists, both of them. It's the money boys and girls vs. the rest of us.

[Plowboy]

Frankly, I would choose Huey himself over any of those "money" candidates. They stink and will hurt America more. Haven't we suffered enough from Bush?
No Clinton, No Biden. No Giuliani. ETC.
I want a trustworthy man of the people who understands the issues and will fight for the right causes, the American causes, the people's causes, the just causes.
I like Richardson who has had experience in governing, has served in diplomatic negotiotions, has thought of our problems anf how to address them. He can make us proud again. Too bad the totally owned and dispicable mediaa doesn't like him. He is not as easily corrupted as I suppose they would like.
Kuccinich has a great agennda; his health care plans should make people look at him, but i fear he has so much right tyhat our wrong loving media won't let him be heard.
Edwards has had a good message: that makes him also an enemy of the powers that be.
It is People Time.
Get out and get the bastards out.

[January]

I left Iowa 35 years ago and haven't been back. I have paid some attention to elections as reported, and it seems nothing has changed much.

As reported on the PBS News Hour, farmers love NAFTA and *free* trade. American corn has bankrupted Mexican farmers, just the way corporate farming drove small farmers into the cities.

With the high level of federal farm subsidies, the only thing that's free is what farmers get paid for not working. Yet they still look down on welfare queens and union strikers.

There's nothing good about farm greed. The land is being wasted, despite subsidies for crop rotation. So-called *independent* businessmen depend on subsidies and price supports. And 'red' states give us a G.W. Bush and his policy of "take the money and run."

[pmorlan]

Thank you Dave Sirota! Finally someone in the media has taken notice of the most powerful story out there! Keep up the good work. We just signed on to get alerts about your articles.

[LiarLiarIraqsOnFire]

Free Trade bill not only screw the American Worker, it is a major factor in the huge influx of undocumented workers into this country.

This is the true cost of Free Trade.

[ih2005]

Mike Huckabee is an adroit public speaker; he is about calling his listeners to "do something," to awaken them to their own empowerment, and summon them to action in order that "Main Street," and not "Wall Street," will prevail in guarding the values and beliefs upon which the Republic was founded.
Most importantly, Huckabee convinces many that he is ONE with the FairTax grassroots movement ( http://snipr.com/fthuckabeeonirs ). While many - like Romney, and others, who are invested in the current income tax system - seek to demagog ( http://snipurl.com/taxpanelrebutted ) the well-researched FairTax plan, its acceptance in the professional / academic community ( http://snipurl.com/econsopenletter ) continues to grow. Renown economist Laurence Kotlikoff believes that failure to enact the FairTax - choosing instead to try to "flatten" what he deems to be a non-flattenable income tax system - will eventuate into an irrevocable economic meltdown ( http://snipurl.com/meltdowninprogress ) because of the hidden aspects of the current system that make political accountability impossible.
Romney's recent WEAK response to FairTax questioning on “This Week with Geo. Stephanopoulos ( http://snipurl.com/stephanopoulosdebate )” drew a sharp contrast between Huckabee and all other presidential front-runners who will not embrace it. Huckabee understands that what's wrong with the income tax can't be fixed with "a tap of the hammer, nor a twist of the screwdriver." That his opponents cling to the destructive Tax Code, the IRS, preserving political power of granting tax favors at continued cost to - and misery of - American families, invigorates his campaign's raison d'etre.
While passionately supporting FairTax, Huckabee understands that, if elected President, Congress will have to present the bill for his signature. His call to action goes beyond his candidacy, Main Street will have to demand ( http://snipr.com/scrapthecode ) that their legislators deliver the bill.

[mdtaichi]

Framing the issue as "fair trade" rather than opposition to "free trade" makes considerably more strategic sense to Democrats. We are all globalists in the sense that our beautiful world and its humanity is one. The failure of humane global development will doom us all to suffering. U.S. and global economies are interconnected and “Fair Trade” is linked to domestic job growth.
John Edwards has the most specific proposals of any candidate to re-negotiate free trade agreements so they are once again fair trade agreements. Regarding “fair trade,” John Edwards is for strong labor and environmental standards and against illegal subsidies and currency manipulation. He is also for rigorous enforcement of trade agreements, not just negotiation.
Edwards also advocates for the restoration of tax fairness and the enhancement of competitiveness and job growth. In the breadth and detail of his economic proposals, John Edwards differs substantially from the other candidates. The difference and contrast between Edwards and Clinton is that Edwards has the keener sense of what unfair trade has meant while Clinton double-talks about "trade balance" and "seeing NAFTA with hindsight."
"John Edwards is informed by the fact that 300,000 taxpayers make half of the nation’s income, while 150 million make the other half, which represents the greatest income inequality in this country since 1928. This reality has been exacerbated by the combination of unfair tax practices, the ill effects of unfair globalization, and trade policies that mostly enrich multinational corporations and certainly not workers. Only John Edwards has called for creating a new test for trade: Will new deals benefit working families, not just multinational corporations?" - Leo Hindery, Edwards' senior economic advisor
“It’s time we honored work in this country, not just wealth.” - John Edwards /

[Listen2me]

Another analysis article which fails to mention the "little men who aren't there"---Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. I expect the corporate media to blank them out---but Sirota? Come on now. Paul raised over $4 million in small donations in 24 hours---he's not what Sirota thinks of as a populist, I'm not saying that---but he has some kind of POPULAR support which no other candidate is generating. I know that not all of his backers are the lunatic fringe, and I wish he'd repudiate them, but there's something happening there. Huckabee? we shall see. A phony, but with the common touch. Don't mention either him or Edward in the same breath as Huey Long. Too bad Sirota's never heard of Floyd B. Olson, the Farmer-Labor governor of Minnesota who was a contemporary of Long's. It would be kinder to the candidates to compare them with Olson, a populist who fought for the people without the degree of demagoguery, corruption, and thuggery which tainted Long's career.

Kucinich of course is the closest to a genuine populist. His courage in keeping the impeachment flame flickering is being noticed by the rank and file.

[Gdebs]

I think Edwards is the best of the lot who have a chanch of winning.I wish I could vote for Kucinich but I don't think he has a prayer.

[IntegrityIntact]

Great article David! This along with the great news today that John Edwards earned--and I mean earned-- the endorsement from Iowans for Sensible Priorities which boasts 10,000 caucus-goers. This should generate momentum for the campaign in both the Granite and the Hawkeye state.

Here's to victory for John Reid Edwards in 2008! The Campaign to Genuinely Change America!

[starboymikey]

Edwards is still a poor substitute for Gore, but he's probably the closest thing available right now, and he's starting to look better every day. It may be a futile gesture with the money and poll numbers Clinton has, but I think I just decided who will get my vote in the California primary. Here's a hint, it's not someone who supports the Peru Free Trade Agreement.

[Andy823]

I am really surprised at both Obama and Clinton. I thought Hillary would "avoid" the vote so she could play boths sides, and I really thought Obama would vote no. I think this was a mistake by both of them and one that Edwards will gain from.

Edwards has been upfront on the issues for a long time, and that's the kind of person we need running this country.

As for the MSM, well they are so tied up in their own little world of trying to make this some kind of a "battle" between Hillary and Rudy, they can't understand that the people really count, not their own petty wants!

And we all know that the powers that be in this country, on both sides, do not want Edwards in office simply because they will not be able to "control" him as they can a Rudy or Hillary President. Let's show them that the people make the choice in this election, not the corporate war-mongers!

[rixhex56]

Corporations are an evil force -- they always have been. The Founding Fathers knew this; they fought a revolution to escape corporate tyranny, and gave birth to our nation out of that fight. Wealthy, powerful interests have been fighting to regain corporate power ever since. I have long been waiting for a candidate to make this a major platform issue.

As some here have stated, this is the primary threat to our democracy at this moment in history: it is the beast within that hollows out everything this country is supposed to stand for. I hope Ewards is successful in bringing this issue to full awareness in the hearts and minds of Americans because if we can't shut down corporate control of our government, we are truly lost.

[LadyXoc]

Yes to all the above. Unfortunately, a populist has never won the presidency, except possibly Andrew Jackson, who coasted in on his military rep.
Now what kind of bird for Edwards? He's not the kingfisher of Huey Long, nor the black skimmer of the Robert Penn Warren novel. I humbly suggest the goldfinch (Hilary Clinton could be the mockingbird, singing every song there is).

[mommadona]

"Ever so quietly, economic populism may be trumping the importance of campaign bank accounts and celebrity in both parties. Ever so quietly, two candidates emulating the best of Huey Long's legacy are emerging as strong contenders in the quest for the presidential nomination, as my new nationally syndicated newspaper column out today details. And that is a good thing not just for those contenders - but for class-unifying progressive politics in general."

Never underestimate those very pragmatic and grounded people in Iowa.

I'm from Iowa.
So proud of them.
They do not tolerate fools or liars lightly.
Never try to pull that wool over their eyes.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9SuQRbUHySU