Why I'm (Still) Voting for Edwards
I somewhat routinely adopt the underdog when I have little stake in a sporting contest (ohmigosh how I enjoyed that terrific upset, Giants! - a team I don't recall ever caring a fig about before). In Democratic presidential politics I feel I have a very big stake, yet have found myself with the underdog anyway. Of course John Edwards is the one candidate (besides Kucinich, that is) saying what I wanted said about the corporate takeover of our system and the plight of the poor, far more than all the other candidates put together. When he reportedly called off his candidacy (voicemail at home tonight from local supporter wants to hedge on that; he supposedly has his campaign "on hold"), I was about to donate again. Already being of the mindset that I am far from ready to wholeheartedly switch my allegiance to either remaining (D) candidate, I have appreciated a number of pro-Edwards articles.
In particular, I found Christopher Cook's words at Common Dreams eloquent and his writing persuasive:
First let me say what this essay is not: it’s neither some desperate idealistic lunge at lost hope, nor is it sour grapes. Ironically, my stubbornly lingering support for Senator John Edwards is oddly pragmatic: it’s the only way I can think to register support for progressive ideas in the Super Tuesday sweepstakes, thus presenting a principled obstacle to messrs Obama and Clinton. Sound funky? Read on.
Politics is about negotiation, leverage, power - and, yes, ideas. In my estimation, Senators Obama and Clinton have failed to exhibit a strong consistent commitment to progressive ideas, and need to be pressured and held as accountable as possible to ideas such as universal healthcare, strong sturdy anti-war policies, and economic justice. The only sensible way to express that sentiment on Super Tuesday is to vote for Senator Edwards — and make the two would-be nominees fight harder for his endorsement and delegates. A vote for Edwards will also remind them that even if his candidacy is dead, the principles - and constituencies - his campaign represented are not.
Neither candidate has been clear and consistent on the war and when/how to end it (not even Obama, who has since voted for war payments). Both candidates’ Iraq pull-out statements remain fuzzy and ultimately non-committal. Neither candidate has taken a strong clear stand on a universal healthcare plan that truly breaks the insurance industry’s hold over America’s healthcare system. (Check out Paul Krugman’s astute critique of Obama’s healthcare plan versus that of Clinton, in which he points out: “the big difference is mandates: the Clinton plan requires that everyone have insurance; the Obama plan doesn’t.” Not exactly what I’d call “progressive.”) To the extent that either has mentioned issues of poverty and workers’ rights, and corporate greed/power (which is to say hardly at all), it has been by virtue of pressure from Edwards’ candidacy.
This is not an anti-Obama or anti-Clinton appeal; ultimately I’ll line up like a good soldier behind either nominee to bring an end to this particularly vicious and damaging era of Republican executive power. Rather, I encourage voting for Edwards tomorrow on the basis of representing progressive ideas in the electorate, and sending as many delegates his way as possible, in the hopes that he will be that much more empowered to exact some pledges for his endorsement of either candidate. Otherwise, progessives who wanted a candidate who stands strongly on a range of key domestic and international issues will have no electoral means of registering their opinion.
Politics is largely about the bargaining and wielding of power and ideas; you don’t start the negotiation by bargaining away your ideals, you start with your ideals and work back as little as possible.
Progressive ideas win only when they are strongly represented — not when they are tucked in the back pocket and slipped in on the margins later, if at all. As Adolph Reed astutely pointed out in The Progressive magazine recently, we saw how well such hopefulness worked out in the first Clinton era (witness the “end of welfare,” early erosions of civil liberties under his counter-terrorism bills, rampant media consolidation, among other progressive fatalities). So-called “unifying” centrism - ably represented by both Clinton and Obama - never begets liberalism or progressivism.
-clip-
And, on a harmonious note, if not so specifically in the mode of coaching voting-booth action, Paul Krugman rightly wants some encores and proper credit assigned before Edwards is escorted offstage:
So John Edwards has dropped out of the race for the presidency. By normal political standards, his campaign fell short.
But Mr. Edwards, far more than is usual in modern politics, ran a campaign based on ideas. And even as his personal quest for the White House faltered, his ideas triumphed: both candidates left standing are, to a large extent, running on the platform Mr. Edwards built.
To understand the extent of the Edwards effect, you have to think about what might have been.
At the beginning of 2007, it seemed likely that the Democratic nominee would run a cautious campaign, without strong, distinctive policy ideas. That, after all, is what John Kerry did in 2004.
If 2008 is different, it will be largely thanks to Mr. Edwards. He made a habit of introducing bold policy proposals — and they were met with such enthusiasm among Democrats that his rivals were more or less forced to follow suit.
It’s hard, in particular, to overstate the importance of the Edwards health care plan, introduced in February.
Before the Edwards plan was unveiled, advocates of universal health care had difficulty getting traction, in part because they were divided over how to get there. Some advocated a single-payer system — a k a Medicare for all — but this was dismissed as politically infeasible. Some advocated reform based on private insurers, but single-payer advocates, aware of the vast inefficiency of the private insurance system, recoiled at the prospect.
With no consensus about how to pursue health reform, and vivid memories of the failure of 1993-1994, Democratic politicians avoided the subject, treating universal care as a vague dream for the distant future.
But the Edwards plan squared the circle, giving people the choice of staying with private insurers, while also giving everyone the option of buying into government-offered, Medicare-type plans — a form of public-private competition that Mr. Edwards made clear might lead to a single-payer system over time. And he also broke the taboo against calling for tax increases to pay for reform.
Suddenly, universal health care became a possible dream for the next administration. In the months that followed, the rival campaigns moved to assure the party’s base that it was a dream they shared, by emulating the Edwards plan. And there’s little question that if the next president really does achieve major health reform, it will transform the political landscape.
Similar if less dramatic examples of leadership followed on other key issues. For example, Mr. Edwards led the way last March by proposing a serious plan for responding to climate change, and at this point both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are offering far stronger measures to limit emissions of greenhouse gases than anyone would have expected to see on the table not long ago.
Unfortunately for Mr. Edwards, the willingness of his rivals to emulate his policy proposals made it hard for him to differentiate himself as a candidate; meanwhile, those rivals had far larger financial resources and received vastly more media attention. Even The Times’s own public editor chided the paper for giving Mr. Edwards so little coverage.
And so Mr. Edwards won the arguments but not the political war.
-clip-
If Democrats manage to get the focus on their substantive differences with the Republicans, however, polls on the issues suggest that they’ll have a big advantage. And they’ll have Mr. Edwards to thank.
In particular, I found Christopher Cook's words at Common Dreams eloquent and his writing persuasive:
First let me say what this essay is not: it’s neither some desperate idealistic lunge at lost hope, nor is it sour grapes. Ironically, my stubbornly lingering support for Senator John Edwards is oddly pragmatic: it’s the only way I can think to register support for progressive ideas in the Super Tuesday sweepstakes, thus presenting a principled obstacle to messrs Obama and Clinton. Sound funky? Read on.
Politics is about negotiation, leverage, power - and, yes, ideas. In my estimation, Senators Obama and Clinton have failed to exhibit a strong consistent commitment to progressive ideas, and need to be pressured and held as accountable as possible to ideas such as universal healthcare, strong sturdy anti-war policies, and economic justice. The only sensible way to express that sentiment on Super Tuesday is to vote for Senator Edwards — and make the two would-be nominees fight harder for his endorsement and delegates. A vote for Edwards will also remind them that even if his candidacy is dead, the principles - and constituencies - his campaign represented are not.
Neither candidate has been clear and consistent on the war and when/how to end it (not even Obama, who has since voted for war payments). Both candidates’ Iraq pull-out statements remain fuzzy and ultimately non-committal. Neither candidate has taken a strong clear stand on a universal healthcare plan that truly breaks the insurance industry’s hold over America’s healthcare system. (Check out Paul Krugman’s astute critique of Obama’s healthcare plan versus that of Clinton, in which he points out: “the big difference is mandates: the Clinton plan requires that everyone have insurance; the Obama plan doesn’t.” Not exactly what I’d call “progressive.”) To the extent that either has mentioned issues of poverty and workers’ rights, and corporate greed/power (which is to say hardly at all), it has been by virtue of pressure from Edwards’ candidacy.
This is not an anti-Obama or anti-Clinton appeal; ultimately I’ll line up like a good soldier behind either nominee to bring an end to this particularly vicious and damaging era of Republican executive power. Rather, I encourage voting for Edwards tomorrow on the basis of representing progressive ideas in the electorate, and sending as many delegates his way as possible, in the hopes that he will be that much more empowered to exact some pledges for his endorsement of either candidate. Otherwise, progessives who wanted a candidate who stands strongly on a range of key domestic and international issues will have no electoral means of registering their opinion.
Politics is largely about the bargaining and wielding of power and ideas; you don’t start the negotiation by bargaining away your ideals, you start with your ideals and work back as little as possible.
Progressive ideas win only when they are strongly represented — not when they are tucked in the back pocket and slipped in on the margins later, if at all. As Adolph Reed astutely pointed out in The Progressive magazine recently, we saw how well such hopefulness worked out in the first Clinton era (witness the “end of welfare,” early erosions of civil liberties under his counter-terrorism bills, rampant media consolidation, among other progressive fatalities). So-called “unifying” centrism - ably represented by both Clinton and Obama - never begets liberalism or progressivism.
-clip-
And, on a harmonious note, if not so specifically in the mode of coaching voting-booth action, Paul Krugman rightly wants some encores and proper credit assigned before Edwards is escorted offstage:
So John Edwards has dropped out of the race for the presidency. By normal political standards, his campaign fell short.
But Mr. Edwards, far more than is usual in modern politics, ran a campaign based on ideas. And even as his personal quest for the White House faltered, his ideas triumphed: both candidates left standing are, to a large extent, running on the platform Mr. Edwards built.
To understand the extent of the Edwards effect, you have to think about what might have been.
At the beginning of 2007, it seemed likely that the Democratic nominee would run a cautious campaign, without strong, distinctive policy ideas. That, after all, is what John Kerry did in 2004.
If 2008 is different, it will be largely thanks to Mr. Edwards. He made a habit of introducing bold policy proposals — and they were met with such enthusiasm among Democrats that his rivals were more or less forced to follow suit.
It’s hard, in particular, to overstate the importance of the Edwards health care plan, introduced in February.
Before the Edwards plan was unveiled, advocates of universal health care had difficulty getting traction, in part because they were divided over how to get there. Some advocated a single-payer system — a k a Medicare for all — but this was dismissed as politically infeasible. Some advocated reform based on private insurers, but single-payer advocates, aware of the vast inefficiency of the private insurance system, recoiled at the prospect.
With no consensus about how to pursue health reform, and vivid memories of the failure of 1993-1994, Democratic politicians avoided the subject, treating universal care as a vague dream for the distant future.
But the Edwards plan squared the circle, giving people the choice of staying with private insurers, while also giving everyone the option of buying into government-offered, Medicare-type plans — a form of public-private competition that Mr. Edwards made clear might lead to a single-payer system over time. And he also broke the taboo against calling for tax increases to pay for reform.
Suddenly, universal health care became a possible dream for the next administration. In the months that followed, the rival campaigns moved to assure the party’s base that it was a dream they shared, by emulating the Edwards plan. And there’s little question that if the next president really does achieve major health reform, it will transform the political landscape.
Similar if less dramatic examples of leadership followed on other key issues. For example, Mr. Edwards led the way last March by proposing a serious plan for responding to climate change, and at this point both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are offering far stronger measures to limit emissions of greenhouse gases than anyone would have expected to see on the table not long ago.
Unfortunately for Mr. Edwards, the willingness of his rivals to emulate his policy proposals made it hard for him to differentiate himself as a candidate; meanwhile, those rivals had far larger financial resources and received vastly more media attention. Even The Times’s own public editor chided the paper for giving Mr. Edwards so little coverage.
And so Mr. Edwards won the arguments but not the political war.
-clip-
If Democrats manage to get the focus on their substantive differences with the Republicans, however, polls on the issues suggest that they’ll have a big advantage. And they’ll have Mr. Edwards to thank.
posted by Sir Gumbo at 9:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home