The Edwards Imperative: Because The Politics Of Compromise Have Failed

Edwards should be Democratic nominee because he is the most progressive and electable of the top three candidate and the only one who understands that entrenched interests like the telecoms, banks, credit card issuers, health insurers and oil companies aren't voluntarily going to make some sort of "bipartisan happy consensus" that costs them billions of dollars and a ton of power, whether doing so saves millions of lives, trillions of dollars and makes the country prosperous and safe or not.

Just is not happening.

And anyone who thinks it is (hello, Mr. Obama) is both living in a fantasy land and certainly is suffering from amnesia, because nothing, nothing in the last 30 years, indicates that megacorporations are giving up any power, even a small amount, without a fight to the death.

Strike you as over the top? Why then, for example, did oil companies insist on continued subsidies when they were making record profits? When was the last time health insurance companies were okay with any expansion of universal health care, unless as with the Medicare drug benefit, it was going to make them even more money? And let's all remember the record industry, who think that they own music you bought, and that you're only renting it and can neither give it away, sell it or even, much of the time, copy it for your own use.

The filthy rich haven't become richer than any time in U.S. history because they were willing to give any sucker an even break, and only a sucker would expect folks like Scaife, Mellon and Murdoch to "compromise" when they've been winning by not giving an inch.

We could go through policy positions and compare the candidates, one to an another, and the end result would show that Edwards is slightly more progressive than Clinton and Obama: a slightly better Iraq plan, a health care plan that is about equivalent to Clinton's and better than Obama's, a much better rapport with labor, and so on.

But that's not what this nomination battle is about. All three candidates are offering basically progressive policies, minus the big promise to definitely get out of Iraq post-haste.

And the question isn't even, really, do you believe them, though for the record I have real doubts about Clinton and Obama. However others don't, and that's fine -- in most respects its a gut-check thing, all of them have checkered pasts with some votes that are less than sterling, so in every case each of us has to decide, "Do I really believe this candidate this time?"

Instead we need to ask, while taking them at face value, does their plan to actually push through a progressive plan make sense?

Clinton says that she's got the experience to make it work. Even granting that being the first lady allows her to take credit, the fact is that the Clinton years saw the Democrats lose both the House and the Senate and saw Bill Clinton put through many bills that were, to put it kindly, essentially conservative in nature. And Hillary Clinton's one big moment in the sun, healthcare reform, ended with her being given a resounding drubbing by the health insurance lobby. She was never given such an important policy position again by her husband. Voting for Clinton is taking on an old scarred fighter with a bad win/loss record. And all of this is before we get to Mark Penn, the union-buster, being her chief right hand man.

Then there's Barack "Consensus" Obama. It's hard to even take this seriously. In 2007 the Republicans in Congress killed, through technical filibusters, almost twice as many bills as any Congress ever has. For the last 7 years, George "I won the vote that matters 5-4" Bush has ruled the country by running rough-shod over the opposition party, giving them essentially nothing. There has been no consensus-driven voting or decision-making in the U.S. in 7 years, and there wasn't that much in the '90s, either. Oh, sure, I understand that Obama and many Americans would like to go back to the land of consensus-driven politics, where there's a center and where everyone works for what is best for America by splitting the difference. It's a pretty picture. But there's no middle left.

There's no room for splitting the difference between torturing and not torturing. There's no room for splitting the difference between selling illegal wars based on lies and not selling illegal wars based on lies. There's no room to split the difference between respecting the Constitution and not respecting the Constitution.

There's no middle left and anyone who thinks that the vast majority of Republican Senators will respond to good will is living in a world of denial. Nothing, absolutely nothing, in Republican behaviour in the last 7 years indicates that will happen. Just as nothing in the behaviour of oil companies and health insurers indicates they're interested in "compromise" when not compromising has done so very very well for them and taken them from victory to victory.

Which leaves us with John Edwards: who wants to kick ass, take names, and help the middle class stop getting reamed out by credit card companies, banks, oil companies, Wall Street and all the other invertebrates whose existence is based on sucking blood from ordinary people while denying they have any responsibility for how pale and weak the middle class has become.

Can he do it? Many Democrats, used to having their teeth kicked in for years by Republican bullies, say no. They reason that without 60 votes, they'll still have to compromise with Republicans and so they want a Compromiser-In-Chief sitting in the White House.

But compromise, tried for damn near 20 years, has gotten us nothing but our teeth kicked in, our lunch money stolen and thousands of soldiers and probably a million Iraqis dead. And strangely, despite not having 60 votes at any point during their period of rule, the Republicans got through most of what they wanted.

So perhaps the key to getting Republican votes isn't to come forwards sniveling on ones knees asking what the price for the votes is. I suggest the key is to have a president aggressively make the case that the American people want health care, want lower oil prices, want fairer credit card policies -- a president who is willing to go the wall over it.

That's what John Edwards is offering. What Obama and Clinton are offering is, in effect, nothing more than what has already been tried and failed. Clinton's experience amounted to, at best a tie, and more realistically, to a decade where the right wing got much of what it wanted. Obama's "compromising" is exactly what Daschle, Reid and Pelosi have tried to do, leading to spectacular failure and ending in a Democratic majority Congress which Republicans like more than either Democrats or Independents.

It's time for a new approach, and amongst the three front runners in the Democratic field, that means Edwards. As with FDR, if his approach works, he will be both the most loved and most hated man in America, and some will wring their hands about how divisive that is. But if "unpleasantness" is what is needed to stop going to war illegally, to end the shredding of the Constitution and to stop the destruction of the Middle Class, so be it. An unwillingness to really fight means that those who will, the Republicans, will walk all over those who won't.

The time for the failed politics of compromise is over.

Now it's time for John Edwards.

Comments

[leftbehind2000]

Ian, you hit one right out of the park. Thank you.

Bush has lied to us about many things, but concerning one thing he is spot on: you can't negotiate with terrorists. It's time the Democrats learned this lesson regarding the right-wing ideological terrorists who control the GOP.

Let's hope enough people recognize the Edwards imperative and vote for a change that matters.

[Kram]

The republicans need to be crushed, humiliated, and kicked to the curb, so that they can reclaim their 29% stautus they enjoyed when I was growing up.

After all, they have been doing this to the rest of America for 30 years now. Time for a little middle-class payback. Make all them future tax increases retroactive. That will all but kill the greedy bastards!

Bi-partisianship? I don't need no stinking bi-partisianship!

[gro]

If it's Edwards and Huckabee, you can bet the filthy rich elitists will push Bloomberg hard. The only 'reasonable' solution to populism will be to scare voters with terrible consequences.
They never got rich by being nice or sharing.

[BUSHsurvivor]

Screaming about the corporations is not the point. During the 90s when corporations AND workers were doing well, America was at its best! Then came Bush and his rethugs and corporations got all of the attention and look what happened to the workers! Obama and Edwards can continue screaming about the corporations, but in the end should they become President, they will turn on you progressives in a heartbeat and spin about why they will need to work with Big Business! Clinton knows when we all work together, we all benefit! And if that is rethug-lite, then so be it because it is also reality! She has my vote in the primary!

Should she not be the nominee, I will strongly support whomever is because America cannot take 4 more rethug years.

[zagyzebra]

All holiday discussions eventually lead to, "Which candidate are you leaning toward?" Whenever I point out that if one really pays attention to Edwards, one realizes his every other sentence brings to task the huge corporate conglomerates eating away at democracy. Then people raise their eyebrows in some surprise, as if heartened to hear this, and then respond, "Yeah, but what about that $400 haircut?" Wouldn't it be sad if the man's physical imaging was too slick for the middle class vote, the very one he's so ardently campaigning for?

[OhPlease2007]

Ian, what a great post! Your argument is spot-on. Too bad the Obama cheerleaders at HuffPost don't seem to, 'get-it.' Obama and Clinton are part of a sitting congressional body that has a worse approval rating than G.W. Bush. Who the hell wants to vote for that??? Not me!

It's time to bring America back to, 'the people.' John Edwards will make a great president who will do just that.

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

I wish John Edwards were more than just the CFR/Bilderberg Group's Controlled Opposition.

A politician can and will say ANYTHING to get elected, we know this. The Bilderbergers realize we're not as stupid as they thought we were, so they're having their Plan C (Hillary and Obama being Plans A and B) read the latest script of what they've finally figured out we wanted to hear.

The real question is, will you fall for it? If you really want to know what John Edwards is about, look at his voting record and don't expect anything to be any different once he gets into the Oval Office.

Republicans and Democrats: Two wings on the same greedy vulture. The real question is, which candidates are NOT CFR/Bilderberg/Corporatist shills? And here's your answer:

Dennis Kucinich
Mike Gravel
Ron Paul.

EVERYONE else is a member of the CFR, including possible late entries Bloomberg and Gore. CFR members do not have our best interests at heart, PERIOD. They are globalists. Corporatists. The brain trust behind NAFTA and the NAU and the Amero. If losing our country to the globalist agenda sounds like a good idea to you, go ahead and vote for someone other than the three listed above. Anyone, it doesn't matter, since the CFR candidates are all on the same "team."

I'm going to sound like a broken record pretty soon, but who cares who wins the horse race if you own both horses?

[FogBelter]

Now is NOT the time for compromise or bipartisanship.

If the Democrats get the White House and larger majorities in Congress then they shouldn't be charitable with the Republicans, too much has been lost since 1980, we need to recover territory before we talk of building bridges with the other side.

This is a War ... and in a War to Fight is to Win.

Fight Hard ... Fight Smart ... Fight to Win!!!

Relentless.

[thgy]

Yaaah, Amen, Amen !

[bigString]

The only effective compromise can come when dealing from a position of strength - not the position currently held by democrats.

We need someone who, as you stated, will kick ass and take names, thus rallying the democratic congress into doing something besides wringing their hands and claiming that's all they can do - thereby establishing a position of strength.

If the American people are sick enough of being trickled on to vote for a fighter like Edwards, they have a chance of achieving relief from "Corporatism" which is the term Mussolini used for fascism. If not, that is, if they vote for the corporate democrats Clinton/Obama, they will get more of the same.

I have a lot more doubts about the convictions of the American people than I do about those of Edwards. He's not perfect but he's our best hope. Best by a country mile.

[realitytrumpsbull]

I just question the sincerity of his support
for reform. Wasn't too terribly long ago that
he was for the war before he was against it,
gainstforgainstforBillarymeltdown, and there's
the pesky issue of his having been involved
in the mortgage hedge fund thing, trial lawyer
and all that doesn't really impress me because
a lot of these people are like a weathervane,
they don't so much have principles as that they
follow prevailing winds. Right now, a lot of
people are asking for information, demanding
answers, asking questions, and when enough
people get on THAT channel it won't really
matter who's in office or campaigning 'cause
the truth will ultimately come out.
Our federal finances have been @@#$#@#$ up for
HOW long, and fixing them isn't going to
be an overnight 'deal', but it DOES have
to happen because it affects nearly EVERYTHING
that goes on. And, not just in our country,
but beyond our borders, too, the influence
peddling doesn't fear a little dotted line.
Final view? Government run amok wastes a lot
of money, destablizes people's lives, and
causes a lot of concern for the future of the
economy. Does he own any stock in oil companies?
Questions, yes, many questions...if he wants
to sit in the Big Chair I hope he's ready to
answer them...

[factanonverba]

Part II

The Democrats thankfully are full of ideas and offer an array of style and substance. If you think that Washington works and all that is needed is a more palatable centrist approach then Mrs Clinton is your choice. It is politics as usual, Clinton-style. That worked in the 1990s but I think times are much different. Tried and true is broken and false in 2008. Mr. Obama, why can't we all get along, is Mr. Nice. Hope is audacious but this isn't Mr. Rogers' neighborhood. DC 2008 is more like gang warfare. We'd better off with either of the two policy wonks in the race: Biden or Dodd. Both are admirable men of conviction and with a deep knowledge of how the world works yet truly cognizant of the world that can be. Still it is my belief that the compact that has governed this nation has been broken, the victim of a right-wing conspiracy since 1870s and acutely since the 1980s that has left the Constitution in tatters. It is not just dreams that have been shattered, it is our fundamental rights as free men that been shredded. In this light, we have three options: Edwards, Kucinich and Gravel. Of these, Edwards is clearly in the best position to win and fight the good fight against enemies both foreign and domestic. That's why I believe in John Edwards. He gets the read and scope of what is at stake.

[factanonverba]

Let's be blunt: The Republicans offer little, only gradients of a hell we already know. Guiliani as Biden noted can only speak in sentences consisting of a noun a verb and 9/11; Mr. Thompson seems bored by it all; Mr. Romney is a parody, wanting to assume the mantle of Reagan as it were 1988 yet with all the charm of a dung beetle. Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee seem a different breed. I admire Mr. Paul's respect for the Constitutional rule of law but it is hard to support who does not believe in evolution and whose conception of government is frankly better fitted for a frontier that has long since evaporated. Mr. Huckabee is perhaps Pat Buchanan's and Pat Robertson's Satanesque spawn. He's an economic populist mired in a Baptist cloak. His one accomplishment is winning a battle of the bulge, no small feat in an American of the obese. The Republican Party is clearly spent as an ideological tour de force. Only the Cheney wing of the GOP seems to have any life but we all should know that means perpetual war for perpetual profits for a small elite. It is corporatism in a feudal gown.

[MrsHaskell]

Thanks for telling it like it is! Republicans have proven that partisanship is a great way to implement radical changes over a very short period of time. We can and should make it work for us. It's the only way we're going to save this country from blood-sucking corporate parasites and the fascists, theocrats, and monarchists who do their bidding in *our* government.

[RUKiddinme]

I know I'm probably late to the party, but I really am getting on board with John Edwards' campaign/message.
While I don't subscribe to the whole "horserace" mentality that's being described in the media, I plan to throw all my support behind John on Feb 5. I sincerely hope he can gain traction/support in Iowa and New Hampshire to become a viable candidate to the voters in California, Nevada and South Carolina. We need his bold leadership in the coming years!

Go John Go!!!

Edwards/Richardson '08