John Edwards' Closing Argument -- And Why The Media Doesn't Get It
John Edwards is making his closing argument with the voters of Iowa -- and the media elites are having a hard time trying to understand why he is now drawing increasingly larger crowds. That comes through glaringly in today's New York Times piece by the apparently perplexed Adam Nagourney.
In the piece, we learn that:
Mr. Edwards, a North Carolina Democrat, almost won the Iowa caucuses in 2004 by introducing, in the final weeks of the contest, a closing argument that drew huge crowds and, polls suggest, rallied supporters to his corner right up until the night of the vote. Now, Mr. Edwards, a former trial lawyer, is offering yet another closing argument to his jury of voters here. And there is evidence -- from the size of his crowds to the decision by an opponent, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, to challenge him more directly in the past few days -- that it may be working.
Nagourney appears surprised by this development. He even tries to make it seem as if Edwards' message is in conflict with the "Two Americas" slogan that has been a centerpiece of the campaign since it began in New Orleans last year.
And, to some extent, this has been the media's problem from the outset. Elites like Negourney don't get that there is an absolute connection between what Edwards says about "Two Americas" -- that we have a few people who are doing quite well while most people are not. When Edwards says this:
"We have an epic fight in front of us, and anybody who thinks that's not true is living in a fantasy world," Mr. Edwards said. "How long are we going to let insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies run this country? Every time this has happened in our country, the American people have risen up and taken action."
...he is exactly talking about the fight by one part of America to take back the country, with another part of the country -- the elites, particularly in business -- determined to hold on to its power and privilege.
In the article, Nagourney quotes from the Des Moines Register endorsement of Sen. Clinton:
"Edwards was our pick for the 2004 nomination," the editors wrote. "But this is a different race, with different candidates. We too seldom saw the positive, optimistic campaign we found appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change."
The frame that Edwards' message is "harsh anti-corporate rhetoric" makes it even more difficult for the elites to understand why Edwards has strong appeal. These folks don't understand what many Americans understand:
We don't need a candidate -- or, for that matter, a president -- who believes that their job is to get along with business, or that the way to turn things around in America is to have a pleasant conversation with business. This has been the chain around our collective necks for lo these many decades. We need a president who, first and foremost, understands the interests of working people and, then, asks the question: how can business serve those interests?
We need a president who understands what it means to have trade that benefits people, not corporations.
We need a president who understands that the greed of the health care industry is literally killing people.
We need a president who understands what it means to support unions.
The media has never gotten this. And so reporters and columnists (with some exceptions) have repeatedly recoiled at Edwards' message. They find it distasteful. They find it "harsh."
What they can't understand is the truth because, after all, it threatens their own perception of the world and, in many cases, it may threaten their very standing in the pecking order down the road.
And, so, they stand, astonished, by the growing crowds for Edwards. I don't know if this means that Edwards wins. I do know that he has framed the debate in this primary and is trying to create a conversation in the country that lasts beyond the election. We can all be thankful for that.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
If the classic definition of "radical" means "root", then Edwards has gotten to the root of what ails America. He has articulated the message of excess corporate domination over the country, and he has (mostly) stayed on that message.
I'm leaning toward him right now, because it's becoming apparent that we can't clean up health care, war profiteering, the energy crunch, global warming, and the political system itself without leveling the playing field and recognizing that laissez-faire economics is ruining the country.
great post--Edwards rocks.
(will you challenge Hillary again here in NY? I was proud to vote for you in the primary last time and she definitely needs to be challenged--Schumer too)
Edwards needs to borrow this Frederick Douglass quote...
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation…want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters…. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." -- Frederick Douglass, 1857
The corporatist media is mostly dumbfounded that John Edwards' message has managed to get out, since they've spent the last many months stifling it with distractions ($400 haircut stories) or just not covering it in favor of the "horserace coverage" of Hillary and Barack. And they are really put out that apparently they are going to have to exercise themselves and start giving more coverage to Edwards. And they wonder why the print media and TV are on the decline!
This kind of anti-corporate commentary is heretical. Unfortunately, it's true.
Makes me want to move to Canada, or France, or........
I find it funny that the corporate media labels Edwards as "anti-corporate" and "harsh". It shows that they have not bothered to read any of his proposals.
The reality is that Edwards wants to restore the equilibrium or balance in America. As it stands now, people work for corporations, corporations work for their shareholders, and government is working for corporatio
Thank you for your blog post Mr. Tasini...y
John Edwards is the strongest of any candidate on national security. He wants really good jobs for us and that means production facilities here in the USA. When people have good jobs crime goes down increasing our security where we live. When we have production facilities here we can produce things if we need to for our military. In WW2 our production facilities switched over to supply the military and won WW2 for us. At this time we are still unable to supply our troops with what they need in Iraq, a small conflict. At this time we don't have these facilities and would be very hard pressed to win any all out war. We are at a crisis and John Edwards by his proposals and policies would be able to indirectly address this issue more than any other candidate. I know who really cares about the USA and its people. It isn't the people making the decisions in board rooms in corporations to shut down our factories and buy things made overseas. This is the true story that the media isn't reporting on when they do articles about national security. Edwards is the strongest advocate for the people and our country.
Excellent commentary Mr. Tasini. The media hasn't picked up on Edwards because they are part of the corporate problem strangling this country.
Corporations and those dependent on them fear Edwards. They should because I believe he'd turn things around for struggling Americans.
In blogs I trust. Not the mainstream media. Most of the broadcast media are owned by huge multinational businesses and have their own agenda--making multinational profits.
John Edwards is asking for a level playing field. We have a very tilted playing field right now. We need to take back our Democracy before it is too late.
Out of the top three candidates, John Edwards is the one that will stand up to the special interests, get our economy on track, end the BS in Iraq and restore America's standing in the world . Edwards also has the best chance of beating the republican candidate in the general election.
We have to get beyond class warfare being a bugaboo word. I remember Bush Sr. always spouting off, "That would be class warfare, and we don't want class warfare, do we"? Well I think we have come to the point where the other 99% of us have to stand up and say, "But that is what it is, and yes, we do want it". Good post, Mr. Tasini.
As a long-time John Edwards supporter,
it is nice to see evidence that he's hitting his "peak" just when it's needed most.
He really is proving to be a good distance runner.
Edwards raises the issue of class conflict in this race. He also raises the issue of the growing control that corporations have over our system of government.
The growing disparities resulting from the free trade policies of the Clinton administration and others who wish to deregulate capital are becoming more and more apparent each day. Manufacturing jobs have gone overseas. There can be no denying of that fact.
A populist progressive is exactly what the US needs to prevent military spending to eliminate social safety nets and programs from education to maintaining our infrastructure to providing medical care on a universal basis.
Being anti-corporation is like being "anti-part
Pitting foreign labor against labor in America is not fair because we have a "social contract." Why should we undermine our manufacturing base by outsourcing jobs to third-world countries? The answer is so that CEOs and multinational corporations using American-sounding names can get richer while jobs are lost, and the American worker is cut out of the deal.
John Edwards and I can remember when the median family income in this country bought a comfortable middle-class life. Small businesses, not yet ruined by the giant chains, supplied 80 percent of all jobs: good stable jobs. Government and media could be trusted to perform their proper functions and food came from nearby sources we could rely on. Nobody feared being bankrupted by illness or injury, because health insurance and services weren’t terribly expensive. Most public schools were excellent and just about anyone could afford college at a state school, because tuition was cheap (in some states free) and even those earning minimum wage had far more spending power than today. There was a feeling of calm about having what you needed -- maybe not all you wanted, but enough -- and in that calm were dignity and purpose.
That core confidence is what Edwards wants to restore. I’m sure you’ve never experienced it, if you were raised during the past three decades marked by unbridled corporatism, brutal in its greed. When I was a kid, corporation income taxes accounted for 45 to 50 percent of the nation’s total. Today they contribute a paltry 6 to 7 percent of it, while reaping windfall profits and receiving corporate welfare in a host of forms. The majority of Americans have been systematically robbed to enrich a tiny minority. This kind of crap has to stop. When Edwards speaks of fighting these entrenched interests, he means imposing regulation and fair taxes again.
Of course they aren't going to like it but, given a chance, he’ll really do it -- which is why the corporate-owned media have been trying so hard to destroy him.
The theme of this post essentially is the same as the theme of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign: "It's the economy, stupid." A majority of voters likely would benefit from having a President who cares more about their economic situation than that of the rich. However, a simplistic approach to the economy or reliance on slogans with little meaning (such as "trade that benefits people") is unlikely actually to provide any significant long-term benefits to working families.
Another problem with this post is that the writer's focus on Edwards' populist economic message ignores Edwards' weakness in areas such as foreign policy. All of the major nations of the world will be paying great attention to our election and hoping that our next President will be someone who understands world politics and is skilled in the art of diplomacy. So far, Edwards' campaign has not demonstrated that he has that understanding or skill.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
