An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
John Edwards Leads The Way
He’s rich. And yet his campaign is about helping the poor. Why are we so surprised?
14 Responses to “John Edwards Leads The Way”
He’s just a lovable, huggable, type of guy. All cutesy and nice. Just a damn solid citizen. An Obama/Edwards ticket or vice-versa would ooze so much damn solid citizen-ness that we’ll all start singing Age of Aquarius arm and arm with Hugo Chavez and Che Guevara’s skeleton.
I am not an Edwards supporter. I support Barack Obama. that said, I don’t see why someone who is rich shouldn’t be just as concerned about the poor as anyone else. Where is it written.
Look at FDR or Kennedy. I am sorry but, this purity stuff is stupid. You can be rich, live in a mansion and still care about those who struggle and who are in need. It’s a real shame that so many in Edwards position only think about themselves rather than try to help and give back like Edwards does.
I say, Good for him.
I must agree with vwcat. I am keeping an open mind about Edwards, but the fact that he’s rich and wants to help the poor doesn’t bother me one bit. He didn’t steal his money from the poor or oppress them in any way. Is it any better to have a rich candidate running who doesn’t care about poverty? I don’t get why this needs to be pointed out as though he was some kind of a hypocrite, because he has money. If he raised taxes on the rich to pay for social programs, I assume his taxes would go up as well.
If you want to criticize him on the issues- ie stand on the war, I’d be open to it, but this is AM radio style criticism- where they talk about elitist limosine liberals- who don’t understand people like you and me.
If Edwards’ remedies for poverty involved improving the economy for all and making sure that barriers to rising out of poverty are removed, then there’d be no hypocrisy. But when he preaches populist policies and uses rhetoric like “two Americas”, he leaves himself wide open to the hypocrisy criticism. You can’t preach against “the man” if you are “the man”. If he really believes that the wealthy class holds other people back, if they get rich on the backs of the poor, then he ought to be doing a mea culpa and he ought to give all of his wealth to the poor. If there are “two Americas”, there’s no doubt which one Edwards is part of and even if he sympathizes with those on the other side of the divide, he’s not showing that in his personal life.
Of course a bigger issue about his megahome that will probably haunt him during the campaign is whether he believes that anthropogenic global warming is a threat.
But, CS, you claimed in the Haggard thread that only liberals care about hypocrisy!lol
BTW, Edwards rose from humble beginnings-he wasn’t born with a silver spoon in his mouth. I see no problem with his bringing up inequality, if he wants to implement policies to lessen that inequality, and provide more opportunity. He’s only “the man” if he made his money by exploiting the poor. I don’t see him as a hypocrite, any more than Kennedy or FDR were. Do you have to have fought in a war to send others to war? You don’t have to live in a shack to care that others do.
Of course you probably know that that’s a distortion of what I said in that thread. My view of hypocrisy is that it is something we should care about but that some liberals create a bizarre code of morality by making hypocrisy into the one sin that trumps all others (my views on that were probably more clearly stated in one of the threads about Mick LaSalle’s online book, The Event.
How is that different from what I said? If he wants to implement policies that lessen inequality by providing more opportunity, no hypocrisy. That’s not the kind of policy I’ve heard him advocate, though.
CS- Thanks for your clarification on hypocrisy- I did not read the other thread, and so did not knowingly distort your views on it.
As far as Edwards policies-what exactly do you object to? Universal health care? Ending the Bush tax cuts? I am not certain if I am going to support Edwards myself, but that has more to do with a certain vagueness on foreign policy, than his populist appeal. I do want to support a candidate who wants to restore the power of the middle class, not sure yet if Edwards would be the one to do this. But I don’t think that his wealth should be held against him, as I believe his desire to help the poor is sincere. Do conservatives think he should give away all of his worldly goods and wander the nation in sackcloth and ashes, lol??
OK, Kim, I shouldn’t have implied that you might have purposely distorted.
On Edwards, I guess my only complaint is that he seems to have come out of the gate with rhetoric that (IMO) plays on class warfare. On actual policy, I really don’t know what his poverty prescription will be. If it does focus on opportunity rather than wealth redistribution, then I’ll withdraw my skepticism. It’s still early so I admit I may be prejudging to some extent. But until he states how he would help people move from poverty to middle class, I base some degree of assumption on the way he talks about poverty. Since he hasn’t moved from defining the problem to actually defining his solutions, I have nothing else to base my opinions on. And what I’m doing so far is defining which types of solutions I would call hypocritical for a wealthy man to make (a wealthy man who obviously wants to enjoy that wealth rather than distribute it to others).
CS shows the biggest problem with American conservatives. Their faith in the system is absolute and it blinds them to its faults. The very structure inherent in our economic system means that there will be people left on the bottom. There is no such thing as removing barriers and once they’re gone everyone who works hard will come out OK. That’s just a Republican/Libertarian fantasy that has no resemblance to the real world. Draw an organizational structure of virtually any company and it will be a pyramid or variation on that structure. There are more on the bottom than the top. Those who are on the bottom will only make so much money. In many businesses the amount these people make is low enough so that it makes it hard or even impossible to make ends meet.
Those facts conflict with their ideology so in the conservative mind they don’t exist. Those who admit that it does happen minimize how bad it is, how many people are affected or that old favorite, it’s their fault because they’re lazy.
I think the difference between the wealthy who are hardcore conservatives and people like Edwards are whether they fall into that ideology or not.
Well Jim, thanks for condemning me for something that had almost no relationship to what I said at all.
If I were a libertarian or even a hard core free market Republican, you might have a point. Every time I make a comment critical of policies that lean in the opposite direction toward socialism, you try to pretend that I’ve said something extremist. I don’t favor solutions from either end of that spectrum; pure unchecked capitalism doesn’t work but neither do extreme liberal policies to tax the wealthy and give to the poor.
I acknowledge the problems of greed inherent in capitalism and that when there’s too much power in corporate hands, that greed creates barriers. But do you acknowledge, at all, that some people at the bottom of the pyramid really are stuck there because of the choices they’ve made and not by barriers superimposed by the system? I realize there will always be a pyramid structure but the best we can do is to change the shape of the pyramid (or maybe more accurately would be to say we should have lots of pyramids, which is mainly how you add more ‘top’ positions), and to increase the dynamism of the pyramid so that there are always people at the bottom but the individuals there are continually replaced as they move upward and entry level workers take their place. Sorry, but there’s simply no utopia where everyone starts on a level playing field and attempts to try to create it have serious negative unintended consequences.
My criticism of Edwards wasn’t an endorsement of policies that are the polar opposite of liberal ones; I do support a progressive tax code and social safety nets, for example. But I do resent when a politician uses class/wealth distinctions to build a base of support, and at least if a candidate does so he should practice what he preaches. If his policies are based on a belief that they system which allows some people to prosper is the cause of other people’s poverty, then he can’t exempt himself and his family from blame. It’s not enough to say “My family is fortunate enough to enjoy the benefits of this system which is unfair to others, therefore while I’m enjoying the benefits I will fight for policies to make sure people in the future can’t accumulate so much wealth.” If gaining wealth is the problem, then put your money where your mouth is.
There is nothing hypocritical about being rich and stating that most rich people do not give one iota about the poor. I would say that him being rich gives him MORE credibility: helping the poor is something he does from his heart, because he believes in it, not because he is poor himself or because his family is poor, etc.
Oprah Winfrey is someone who greatly supports the poor, who spends a lot of attention to poor people but she is incredibly rich herself. She is using her money, power and influence however to help the poor. Edwards does the same.
I wish that more rich people would think like they do.
MvdG,
I take it you don’t agree with the distinction that I’m making between advocating policies that help the poor in a general way and advocating policies to take from the rich to help the poor. If you look at it that way, do you see what I’m saying at all or generally do you find it OK to advocate dealing with poverty in that way without making apologies for enjoying luxuries in his own life? (understand that I’m not saying he should be obligated to give up the trappings of his wealth, but I’m saying that if he doesn’t do so, then I feel it’s hypocritical to say that other people are poor because of the upper class is keeping too much wealth for itself.)
kritter said:
February 9, 2007 at 6:59 am
BTW, Edwards rose from humble beginnings-he wasn’t born with a silver spoon in his mouth. I see no problem with his bringing up inequality, if he wants to implement policies to lessen that inequality, and provide more opportunity .
The fact that he came from humble beginnings argues against the notion that inequality exists to an extent that people are doomed to a life of poverty. In addition, many policies which lessen inequality in the short run have no lasting effect There are other reasons why lessening inequality is not always the right approach.
kritter said :
Do conservatives think he should give away all of his worldly goods and wander the nation in sackcloth and ashes, lol??
No. They just don’t think he should tell the rest of us what we should do with the product of our labor and risk.
Comment #9Jim Satterfield said:
February 9, 2007 at 11:24 pm
CS shows the biggest problem with American conservatives. Their faith in the system is absolute and it blinds them to its faults. The very structure inherent in our economic system means that there will be people left on the bottom.
Jim ,that’s not a fault it is an aspect or condition
Jim also said :
here is no such thing as removing barriers and once they’re gone everyone who works hard will come out OK. That’s just a Republican/Libertarian fantasy that has no resemblance to the real world
Jim , Libertarians have no such notion . They understand that inequities will always exist. We just don’t have a problem acknowledging that there are valid reasons for the divide .Note that they also understand that government handouts to corporations exacerbate the situation
jim also said :
Those who are on the bottom will only make so much money. In many businesses the amount these people make is low enough so that it makes it hard or even impossible to make ends meet.
Those facts conflict with their ideology so in the conservative mind they don’t exist
There is absolutely no conflict. Nor do Conservatives or Libertarians need to deny anything. The fact that we lament the diminishing middle class belies your point. The questions revolve around what caused this erosion.
Jim also said :
I think the difference between the wealthy who are hardcore conservatives and people like Edwards are whether they fall into that ideology or not.
I disagree. The difference between most hard-core Conservatives and Edwards is the fact that Edwards is a politician. As such,he panders to a certain segment of the population while most Conservatives are trying to keep as much of what they have earned from being confiscated.
Edwards didn’t get rich by simple altruism. His rewards as a percentage basis are quite higher than most if not all major corporations. But I have no problem with the wealth he has acquired. However, I do have a problem with his targeting mine.