Democrats Need John Edwards to be Their Mike Huckabee: Part 2

In Part 1 of this article, I argued that John Edwards is the most electable of the leading Democratic candidates and the one most likely to carry large Democratic Senate and House majorities on his coattails, thus having the best chance to enact major reform after the '08 elections. Clinton's negatives make her nomination a game of Russian Roulette for Democrats and risks losing both the Presidency and key House and Senate seats in red and purple states. Obama's relative inexperience makes his candidacy unpredictable over the long haul. Edwards electability is reason enough that he should be the Democratic nominee. We just can't take the chance of another 4 years of a Republican President. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles_mogulescu/democrats-need-john-edwar_b_77468.html

In this Part 2, I explain why John Edwards is likely to make the best President of the leading Democratic contenders:

America needs big and sweeping changes--economic policies that will help the poor and middle classes obtain more economic security, access to better education, a more progressive tax structure, and universal health care; environmental policies that will lead towards energy independence and make America a leader in combating global warming; and a new foreign policy that will forsake unilateralism, renounce military preemption, get us out of Iraq, and take major strides to fight global poverty.

All of these measures will be fought by entrenched corporate interests who buy politicians with campaign contributions and stand in the way of fundamental change. Energy companies will fight large scale measures to develop alternative energy sources, combat global warming, and revoke tax subsidies to multi-billion dollar oil companies. Insurance companies and drug companies will fight true universal health care plans which would reduce their profits. Hedge fund managers (who are major contributors to both Clinton and Obama) and wealthy corporate interests will fight a more progressive tax structure. The military industrial complex and the Haliburtons and Blackwaters of the world will try to frighten the American people away from a more progressive foreign policy. Ultimately, progressive change requires an end to the revolving door between Congress and lobbying and public financing of elections so that even well-meaning politicians do not rely on corporate money to win elections.

Fundamental change demands a President who is willing to rally the American people against these rich and powerful corporate interests and use the bully pulpit to force Congress to vote in the general interest and not for the special interests who lobby them and contribute to their campaigns. It's not that legislative compromises won't be necessary to pass new laws. Another Southern populist, Lyndon B. Johnson, used his legislative prowess to pass Medicare and the Civil Rights Acts. But significant change won't come from a President who has already compromised his/her soul for campaign cash from PACs, lobbyists and Wall Street power brokers.

Hillary Clinton is too much the captive of her corporate contributors and her ideological supporters in the business oriented Democratic Leadership Council to bring fundamental change. The essence of Clintonism as a political strategy is triangulation, playing progressivism off against conservatism to effect small-bore change that doesn't challenge powerful special interest. In foreign policy, Hillary is the most hawkish Democrat. She still refuses to apologize for voting for the Iraq war resolution, despite her having failed to read the National Intelligence Estimate. She won't promise to get all American combat troops out of Iraq before the end of 2012. She voted for the Kyle-Lieberman resolution on Iran which gave encouragement to Bush and Cheney's aggressive military stance towards Iran. Rather than seeking ways to reduce military spending and cut-back on America's over 700 foreign military bases around the world (which will be necessary to pay for such things as universal health care, middle class tax cuts, and investment in energy independence without increasing the deficit). Hillary supports increasing the size of the army by 100,000. Hillary's overly strong support for a balanced budget will also interfere with meaningful domestic programs. While it is important in the long-run to bring down the Bush deficits, the principal role of Democrats can't be to run around cleaning up the deficits caused by the Reagans and Bushes of the world. Particularly with a recession likely, a certain amount of deficit spending may still be necessary to prime the economy and pay for social programs.

There is much that can be inspiring about Obama and his message of hope and change. Certainly a black American with an African father reaching out to the world would send a powerful message that America is a different nation than the one led by George Bush. But it's not enough to elect a President based on symbolism. Too often, Obama seems to be a symbol of change, but lacks the substance of change.

Obama's political strategy often shows a paucity of courage as much as an audacity of hope. He seems by nature to be a conciliator, constantly trying to forge compromise with his adversaries. One of his big applause lines is "The insurance and drug companies can have a seat at the table in our health-care debate--they just can't buy all the chairs". The fact is though, once you grant them an important role in the process, they won't just buy all the chairs--they'll own the whole table.

The problem with Obama's vision of change is the idea that it's a matter of forging compromises between people of equally good will, all of whom are trying to advance the public good, even if they disagree. If all he's trying to say is that he can find a way to convince former Republican voters of the need for progressive change--that in a sense he can be the Democratic equivalent of Ronald Reagan--then he could be a change agent. But he seems to go farther in imputing good will to corporate special interests. "My argument is not that they (the insurance and drug companies) are the source of all evil. My argument is that things are out of balance in Washington and their influence is disproportionate."

Edwards responds that "some people argue that we're going to sit at the table with these people and they're going to voluntarily give their power away. I think it's a complete fantasy; it will never happen." The goals of the insurance companies, drug companies, energy companies and military contractors have nothing to do with advancing the public good. Their sole purpose is to increase the bottom lines of their shareholders and the compensation of their CEOs. Their campaign cash and paid lobbying are about swaying lawmakers to support their special interests.

One cannot sit down with insurance companies and drug companies with the idea that their goal is to guarantee the health of the American people. One cannot sit down with the energy companies with the idea that their goal is a cleaner environment and a cap on greenhouse gases. In the end, we live in a capitalist society and accommodations must be made with business to spur economic growth. But the government and a mobilized citizenry must, in John Kenneth Galbraith's phraseology, be a countervailing power to corporate power and greed. Advancing progressive change and reigning in corporate power will mean mobilizing the American people against what FDR called the "economic royalists". It's questionable whether Obama sees the need to take on these special interests.

Edwards commitment to fight for the lower and middle classes seems to be in his blood, a product of his own lower class upbringing and his having had to fight his way to an education and economic success. He devoted his law practice to helping the underdog who had been injured by corporate greed. After the 2004 election, he formed a poverty center, even though poor people do no vote in great numbers. He's hardly perfect. I'm disappointed that he chose to support individual insurance mandates instead of single payer health care. He was wrong to vote for the Iraq War resolution in 2003, but unlike Hillary, he has had the courage to admit he was wrong and apologize for his mistake.

His taking an advisory job with a hedge fund showed bad political judgment for a politician planning to run against the special interests; but he's also called for taking away special tax breaks for hedge fund managers while the Democratic Congress has failed to act.

But, still, he's the most progressive major candidate since Bobby Kennedy, perhaps since FDR. RFK and FDR were also wealthy men who fought for the poor and middle class. (Moreoever, while RFK and FDR inherited their wealth, Edwards started from the bottom and earned it the old fashioned way--by hard work in a law practice fighting for the underdog.) An Edwards presidency would shake up the Washington and Wall Street establishment, and usher in an era of far reaching social reform. And most of all, Edwards stands the best chance of any of the Democratic frontrunners to win the White House and bring a large Democratic majority with him to Congress.

Democratic voters in Iowa and New Hampshire have the chance to break through the mainstream media's story of a two-way race between Clinton and Obama by catapulting Edwards to front runner status, shaking up the Democratic primary process, and ultimately helping to nominate the most electable and progressive major Democratic candidate and ushering in an era of progressive political change.

Comments

[Qbear]

btw. if by some sick twist in the known universe Republcans end up with AIDS hysterical homobigot Huckabee as their nominee, I would vote for the devil him/herself to stop him, and the funds and volunteer hours would be available to the Huckabee Democratic opponent.

[Qbear]

I supported Edwards before he ran as Kerrey's VP. I got disappointed in Obama over McClurkin, and ONLY against Huckabee would I support Clinton...too many reasons to elaborate against Clinton. I could support Edwards again, I have a lot of RESPECT for Elizabeth and Kate. My lover is quite intuitive about people, and he just doesn't like Edwards, my lover is reads people pretty accurately, so that makes me cautious of Edwards.

[RuthieM]

What in the world is in this man's punch? Edwards' hair tonic? He's trumpeting Edwards, the slick used car salesman with the exaggerated southern drawl. He's a phony. He and Hillary are using this non-experience word instead of the real word they want to use -- the race word. I think whenever Hillary and her people and Edwards say Barack has no experience what they really want to say is that he is black, but surely they can't say that. Because the real deal is that Barack has more experience than both of them. He's been in the Senate longer than both, Illinois and U.S. combined, he's worked in community activism more than both of them, and I can go on and on, but that's for each of us to look up because it's there for all to see. So, this all comes down to who is the better salesperson. Right now Hillary is selling her experience thing which is a lie. Barack's health care plan is better than both also.

[Kakie]

Edwards is absolutely the best Democrat running--he is the most progressive and electable, as shown by Rasmussen Reports throughout the year and the recent CNN general election poll.

He is also the only Democrat taking on corporate control in both parties. He will be "Our Friend in the White House."

Go, Edwards!

[CyberCitizen]

As Bill Maher has said, Edwards would be a sure winner.

[CyberCitizen]

John Edwards is a true progressive with a remarkably clean history. Here are four links that helped me decide to support Edwards:

http://skirsch.com/politics/president/comparison.htm (detailed analysis)

www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0110.green.html
(record as a lawyer)

www.charlierose.com/shows/2007/11/29/1/charlie-rose-special-edition-the-candidates (a long interview)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKtWZMDD138 (his Populist roots)

[outnow]

It is a shame that the media virtually ignores John Edwards. He is willing to fight the special interests on behalf of working men and women. Just hoping for change will not bring it about. Obama has been conciliatory towards special interests. These special interests need to be confronted. If "sitting down at a table" brought about major change we wouldn't need trial lawyers or an army.

Universal health care will take a super majority to bring about with a Democratic president. It will eliminate profits for drug companies and insurance companies. These profits will not be given up without a fight. It is naive to believe that any special interest will cave in, especially when billions or even trillions are at stake.

Whatever the experience has been in Chicago for Mr. Obama, he is totally out of his league in this battle. Experienced tort lawyers know this, government housing lawyers do not.

It is contrary to logic and experience and the massive financial interests of the mega-corporations and their lobbyists. Many of these companies are among the top producers of income in the world, even when compared to the fifty largest countries.

The Junior Senator is blowing false hope up the skirts of young voters who lack experience in life and do not want to face the legitimate conflict involved in this looming battle. It is not a "negotiation." Unless you can threaten them with nationalizing health care and have the votes to do so, they will not just roll over.

I have dealt with insurance companies everyday for the past thirty years. On the strength of Mr. Obama's personality, they are not going to give up their billions and trillions.

[cloudy]

I disagree with several of the major premises Mogulescu bases this column on.

First, he assumes that the polling results, at a time when most people haven't taken a close look at Edwards(& he's certainly not vetted by attacks against him) are truly reliable predictors of how the general election would turn out. And not all polls show Edwards outperforming other Democrats, even now.

The critique of HRC is based on experienced politicians' evaluating her chances for this indeed already well-known & highly controversial public figure. Controversial public figures are fine for many things (including for running specifically in "blue venues") or as organizers, commentators, etc. But, regardless of the justice of it, HRC clearly would be a weak national candidate in a strong era for Democrats -- & it's not b/c she's more progressive, either.

The points about Obama recall Bill Clinton's point about 'a roll of the dice'. But EVERYTHING in politics is a matter of risk and uncertainty, not just or primarily Obama. Rather than uncertainty, there's much about Obama that seem to make him an attractive candidate as people get to know him better, even w/ a blizzard of attacks against him (fair or not). Edwards in 2004 didn't come across to me as particularly strong, & couldn't even carry his home state.

Yes, this is a judgment of candidates, but it is no more speculative than the seemingly hard data analysis Mogulescu presents. As for race, which is a kind of 'elephant in the room' on the electability issue, I think it is a mix of pluses AND minuses for Obama, but the number of voters who'd otherwise vote for the Democrat & who (perhaps using some other rationale, even to themselves) wouldn't vote for Obama is very limited. I've no proof of this & many authentic progressives feel strongly otherwise.

On the other hand, Obama's personal projection of strength as a political figure, including the vote-attracting notions of his 'politics of harmony and hope' contrasts sharply to HRC, Edwards, Kerry, & Gore.

As for what kind of president Obama would make, I'll leave that for a separate comment...

[milo9]

I agree, Edwards represents the best chance to turn aside Corporate hegemony.

[RAMHaiti]

I associate Edwards with "The Big Fizzle" of 2004. Edwards as President doesn't make any sense to me. Rallying people? Who? He's as bad as Obama...

[Moderato]

Thanks for the article.

Obama is the biggest phony in the election, people who think he's progressive need to wake up and get on board with Edwards or someone else.

I support Edwards or Clinton. I think there's a valid debate between these two, but (unlike Obama) Clinton does not hide where she stands. Her experience is real, her Senate record is strong and her methodology is consistent. The Democratic voters should be able to have this debate: do we want the respected, experienced insider or the passionate, corporation-battling populist; I like both. If Edwards becomes the insurgent outsider I will support him with all my heart.

I'd also be glad to see Biden, Richardson, or Dodd surge, though they're less likely. Anyone but Obama - sorry, accusing people of things you yourself do and pretending you're something your not is much worse than any other candidate's record or position.

[Thurber]

Edwards made his money suing and putting out of business OB/GYN's over junk science, in other words fraudulantly. Then he went on to hedge funds, i.e. more fraud.

I'm sorry actions speak MUCH louder than words and yes he may be saying all the right things ... right now, but you'll find most of the general public, hard up for health-care and integrity, is going to find this more than just a tad unsavory.

Forget him, for all his fiery spot-on rhetoric, he is unelectable because of WHO HE IS demonstrated by his actions, words be damned.

[lgillooly]

I agree. He is a good Man and a fighter.Edwards/Biden 08'

[Rebelfriend]

Brilliant assessment of the entire election! You are right on every count. But -- and it's a big but -- To rely on the corporate-controlled mainstream media to do what is best for America and support your ideas is sadly not going to happen. Our MSM is now in the hands of a few mega-corporations who do not want a President who has the vision and courage of John Edwards. They want Hillary or Obama (if not a Republican) who will invite them to the table so that they can own it. They are afraid of Edwards, and therefore have ignored his candidacy -- when they could not bash him -- hoping he would die on the vine. And sadly Americans do not pay attention, and are easily manipulated. John Edwards deserves to be our President, because he is the right man for our time. It has been said that we get what we deserve. Do Americans deserve John Edwards? Only if they vote for him. If not, they will get what they deserve, and they will have wrought a very ugly future indeed. Thank you for your insightful article. Now if Americans will just pay attention. God help us!

[RedRooster]

John Edwards - "Doin' a little truth tellin'"

Portsmouth, NH, Wednesday, December 19, 2007

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r03mjqeA1vo