John Edwards - Organizer-in-Chief

The following piece is part of an ongoing series of OffTheBus reports by citizen policy experts critiquing different aspects of Campaign 08.

Much of Wednesday's Democratic presidential debate at Dartmouth College focused on health care reform, which Americans consider the top domestic policy issue, according to polls. Moderator Tim Russert asked each of the eight candidates about their proposals to guarantee every American affordable health care, and each responded with their well-practiced sound-bites.

But only John Edwards identified the most important ingredient for pushing a universal health care plan through Congress - mobilizing public opinion, and changing the nation's political balance-of-power, through grassroots organizing.

Edwards acknowleged that winning health care reform won't happen simply by inside-the-Beltway maneuvering. On that playing field, the drug companies, the insurance industry, and the hospital and HMO chains have the money and the upper hand.

The other candidates, Edwards said, believe that the way to get a health care bill is to broker a deal between "Washington insiders" -- insurance companies, drug companies and other lobby groups. "Its like the rest of America doesn't exist," Edwards noted.

"We need a President who is willing to go to America and make the case for universal health care."

Edwards pledged to be a leader, not just a deal-maker. Twice during Wednesday's debate, Edwards mentioned his hard work over the past few years helping labor unions and community organizing groups. Both prior to launching his campaign for president, and as an integral part of his crusade for the White House, Edwards has crisscrossed the country speaking at union rallies, joining picket lines and campaigns to raise the minimum wage, and visiting job-training centers, affordable housing developments sponsored by nonprofit community groups, and public schools where parents are trained to be effective advocates for children. At the debate, he talked about his work in New Orleans with the community group ACORN to organize residents trying to restore their homes and return to their neighborhoods in the wake of Katrina. And he talked about the importance of union organizing as a way to give workers a voice on the job and in the political arena.

This is hardly the typical path to the White House. Winning health care reform is part of Edwards' moral crusade against poverty and widening inequality in the world's wealthiest nation. While each of the Democratic candidates has put forward a health reform plan, Edwards seems most eager to forge alliances with unions, community groups, religious congregations, public interest and public health organizations, women's groups, and others to wage a campaign that is both bottom-up and top-down, one that combines an "inside" strategy and an "outside" strategy.

Edwards doesn't view these groups as "special interests," but as the key elements of an emerging movement to renew American democracy by empowering ordinary people.

When he visited the United States in the 1830s to write the now-classic Democracy in America, Frenchman Alexis deToqueville viewed the many voluntary self-help organizations among ordinary citizens as the genius of our pluralistic democracy.

Edwards is the first presidential candidate since Robert Kennedy who understands that grassroots organizing -- from the Boston Tea Party to the civil rights movement -- is a central part of American tradition.

Edwards wants help build on the upsurge of civic activism that has taken place across the country over the past decade, often below the media radar screen. He seems inspired by the people he's met in his work with grassroots groups. He wants to apply those lessons as President. He wants to be America's organizer-in-chief.

Indeed, It will require an enormous well-orchestrated, coordinated, and strategic grassroots organizing campaign to win health care reform. A broad coalition -- including unions, community groups, public health organizations (like the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Assn), nurses and other health professionals, environmentalists, netroots activists like MoveOn, and enlightened business leaders -- will need to find common ground on both a single policy plan and, equally important, a grassroots organizing effort that can persuade moderate Democrats in Congress to back health reform as well as target Republicans in "swing" districts and states who could lose their re-election efforts in 2010 if they don't jump on the health reform bandwagon.

In 1993 and 1994 -- the last time the country engaged in a major health reform debate -- the medical-industrial complex put the kabosh on reform. Back then, Hillary Clinton quarterbacked her husband's effort to find a broad consensus for change. But even with a Democratic majority in Congress, the Clintons failed because the health industry lobbyists were able to persuade enough moderate Democrats as well as Republicans to oppose any reform plan that threatened their bottom lines.

By trying to accommodate all the health industry lobby groups, the Clintons' plan was so complex and convoluted that it was difficult to explain and easy to caricature. The health industry successfully muddied the waters with clever TV and radio ads (remember "Harry and Louise"?). The industry lobby groups mischaracterized the Clinton plan as "socialized" medicine and claimed that "big government" would come between patients and their doctors. They effectively used the network of right-wing radio talk shows and the Religious Right to mobilize people to contact their Congresspersons to oppose the Clinton bill. Without a well-organized countervailing movement at the grassroots level, the industry lobby groups were able to win over enough Democrats to thwart a consensus on reform. They outmaneuvered the Clintons, who thought they could achieve health care reform by deal-making in Washington and splitting-the-difference among the various lobby groups. The Clintons didn't tap the potential power of ordinary Americans, who can speak loudly if they are organized and mobilized through their unions, community groups, religious congregations, and issue groups. But their voices were drowned out.

Now, 13 years later, the health care situation is worse. More than 46 million Americans lack health insurance -- up from 39 million in 1993. As Michael Moore's documentary film "Sicko" reveals, millions of families who have insurance are worried that they might lose it (if they lose their job or if their employer demands that they assume a great share of the cost) or that it won't cover them for serious illnesses. Businesses are complaining that they can't afford the skyrocketing cost of health care. General Motors claims that health care costs add $1400 to a car made in the US compared with the same car made in Canada, whose single-payer system reduces administrative costs, limits price-gouging by drug companies, doesn't impose health care costs on employers, and covers everyone.

According to public opinion polls, Americans are even more ready now than they were 13 years ago for a bold universal health care reform plan. But turning public opinion into public policy won't be easy.

Edwards scored the biggest audience response at the Dartmouth debate when he promised to cut off health insurance coverage for members of Congress if they don't pass universal health care reform by July 2009. But his real insight last night was when he talked about the importance of mobilizing Americans to fight for health care reform. Although Hillary wrote her senior thesis at Wellesley about organizing guru Saul Alinsky, and Obama spent several years as a community organizer in Chicago, it seems that only Edwards has absorbed the cardinal rule of organizing: it requires organized people to beat organized money.

To read more OffTheBus coverage and get involved here.

Comments

[brucds]

Right, Peter. Edwards - a guy who spent his life as a trial lawyer and decided not to run for Senate again because he probably couldn't win - is the "first Presidential candidate since RFK to understand organizing is key to the American tradition."

I don't want to cross a smart college professor, but this is horseshit of the first order. Obama is, in fact, the ONLY guy to run for President who ever actually organized anything at the grassroots level other than his own presidential campaign. I can't believe you can spout such nonsense with a straight face. Has Edwards ever knocked on anybody's door with the intent of asking them to do anything other than vote for John Edwards. Barack has - many hundreds of times. Has Edwards ever done anything with labor unions at the grass roots that wasn't part of his campaign strategy ? I've also heard Obama make the clear point that there can't be change just by electing a good guy President several times in various contexts - this is one of his core messages. Just because you heard Edwards pass a soundbite in last night's debate doesn't make him some kind of Prophet of Grassroots Organizing.

I like John Edwards and he's my second choice among the candidates. But some of his supporters are getting incredibly disingenuous and desperate as his star fades. I think that for someone who is supposed to be knowledgable about American politics from a professional perspective, this post is embarrassingly shallow and uninformed - or simply dishonest in the interest of promoting Edwards. In any event, try a little harder next time to rise above hack crap.

[AlteredEgo]

thanks to peter dreier for not marginalizing edwards and thanks to the posters here who donate to edward's campaign now.

[lfane]

Great article! It's clear that John Edwards will be the the true "Healthcare President".

I disagree with SensibleAmerican about Hillary's record in the Senate for NY, especially on foreign policy issues. She's my Senator and I stood on street corners to help her get elected. However she's been a big disappointment for people who actually thought she had political courage and stood for something meaningful.

The next President needs to be bold, smart and a courageous leader like John Edwards, who will lead not only on domestic issues, but on foreign policy. I heard his Pace speech about combatting terrorism worldwide and I can tell you that it was powerful and filled with smart, strong, visonary, yet sensible ideas, something I haven't heard from Clinton all the time she has been in the Senate. It's past time for Hillary to lead and now she should just get out of the way.

[OakRaidFan]

Rebelfriend, I completely agree with everything
you say. Also he is a white, male Democrat
who is also a Southerner. As we all know, the only other Democratic Presidents since 1960
have been of the same cloth, Jimmy Carter &
Bill Clinton. While the Democratic Party may be ready for a woman or a black, most of the rest of America certainly is not. I am not
a sexist nor a racist, but simply a realist
who does not want to waste a vote. Edwards

[Rebelfriend]

OakRaidFan: Did you know that John Edwards has raised more money in the SOUTH than ANY of the other candidates, including the Republicans? What that tells us is that he is the one presidential candidate who can start the healing process of this red/blue state divisiveness that has so harmed our country. Wouldn't it be wonderful for us all to come together as Americans again?! John Edwards can do that!

[Rebelfriend]

Very astute observation. Edwards has lead the way on every single issue since day one of this campaign. He has shown that he has the vision, the intelligence, the strength and the will to be a great President. For Edwards (and his wife as well) this campaign is about one thing: Having the power of the Presidency simply so that he can make life safer and more secure for the working people of America. (When one thinks about the havoc George Bush has created using that power it becomes clear just how powerful the presidency is.) In the hands of a good and decent man like John Edwards, the power would be used to undo the shame of Bush Administration, and set about solving the crucial problems of universal health care, global warming, education, American jobs, and the immoral war in Iraq. And speaking of the War, everyone -- whether Democrat, Independent or Republican -- will want to read Edwards' brilliant speech he gave at Pace University in New York a few weeks ago in which he outlined, in detail, how he will fight Terrorism when he is President. It is strong, intelligent, and powerful. It can be viewed on his website, and it makes clear that this is the candidate who will lead this country, and the world, into a brighter, safer future. John Edwards should be our next President!

[JoAnnCr]

Rebelfriend, I agree with you. I am printing this article. Refreshing!

[nuQlerOstrich]

Not a word about Dennis Kucinich and his bill HR676.

Just like AARP and the debate in Iowa recently. AARP has a $4 billion deal with the corporate insurance industry, and they didn't invite Dennis who has been proposing legislation for a Universal Single-Payer plan to their "debate."

Even though Dennis has been polling even or better than three of the invitees who all support the corporate insurance industry controlling health care un this country.

This just doesn't pass the sniff-test.

[SensibleAmerican]

Edwards' rhetoric is good and so is Barack Hussein's fluff! But fluff and rhetoric don't last long and definitely cannot win an election this crucial! The right wing slime machine will have a field day with hot air candidates like these two!

If anyone thinks it is even possible to remove Health Care for Congressman and Senators, should also believe that there IS a tooth fairy AND a Santa Claus!

Edwards has done good work domestically and has rallied support amongst grass roots. But he lacks the personality and the Foreign Policy experience. In other words, he does NOT a wholesome candidate make! Ofcourse domestic issues are important but the way Bush has handled America's foreign policy so far, the next President will have HER hands full just cleaning up the mess and rebuilding bridges!

Hillary is the only candidate with overall experience and name recognition. Last but in no way the least, she has a husband who is the most revered ex US official in the entire world! His "CGI" is perhaps the biggest and most recognized NGO on this planet!

Her track record in the Senate and in New York manifests an all-in-all good 44th Presidency ...

[JoAnnCr]

Finally a great article on what we already know, Edwards is a great leader and a great man. Clinton knows that so has chosen almost all of his points in health care to use in her plan.

Never underestimate John Edwards.

[KenTerry]

I agree completely that it will take "organized people to beat organized money." And John Edwards is taking that approach to a much greater extent than any of his Democratic rivals. The challenge lies in defining who "the people" are and in finding a program that a majority of them will back. Even Democrats disagree fundamentally about how to achieve their aims, with some favoring a single payer system and others supporting the expansion of government programs coupled with an employer and/or individual mandate. Union people are fighting to protect their own benefits, while public health groups are more concerned about covering everyone.
Telling people that you"re going to cut off health insurance for Congress if they don"t deal with health care reform is a great applause line. It strikes a populist chord but does little more. If we really want to unite everybody behind reform, I think we should take another look at the scenes in Michael Moore"s movie "Sicko" where people who have insurance find that it does them no good when they need it. Most people who have had experience with insurance companies dislike them intensely. If we can find a substitute for competing insurance companies"which I propose in my new book Rx for Health Care Reform (www.rx-healthreform.com)"we could organize people around the banner of returning control of health care decisions to doctors and patients. From there, it would be a short step to saying that health care is a human right, and that our system must be reorganized to benefit people, not insurance companies or other vested interests.

[elpublico]

Let's try to be fair here -- no one refers to the other candidates by their first and middle names. Playing up Obama's middle name in that way has been a right-wing talking point and only seems to be appealing to ugly instincts. I'm sure you can show why Hilary beats Barack in other ways...