Edwards Appeals to Liberal Base
Dec 31st, 2006 | 13 responses
The Washington Post has an interesting article up about John Edwards.
With overflow crowds and his populist economic message and his Internet-friendly campaign organization, John Edwards signaled this week that, if he has anything to say about it, the race for the Democratic presidential nomination will be about more than just Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. Edwards 2.0 is a revised version of his beta candidacy of 2004. He begins his second campaign for the White House with the kind of self-confidence that comes only from having tried and failed once before. “My biased self-perception is that both the campaign and what’s happened since then has had a maturing effect on me,” he said in an interview here Friday, adding: “I think that it’s just a calmness that’s different. There are also critical adjustments in his candidacy that position him to compete against Clinton and Obama, the party’s two unannounced glamour candidates of the moment. Edwards will be able to run to the left of Clinton in a party whose base has shifted leftward during the Bush presidency. And this time, questions about lack of experience will go first to Obama.
All very good points. Edwards has already positioned himself as the – or at least a major – center left candidate for the Democratic Party. Hillary Clinton is purposefully trying to appeal to the more moderate elements within the DP, Obama probably the same… Edwards breaks with that. The problem is not – in my opinion – that a center left candidate cannot win the nomination of the Democratic Party. I think that it is quite possible. The problem is that – in my opinion – such a center left candidate will never be President of the U.S. Well, never, at least not for now. The American people as a whole is simply not ‘liberal’ enough for that. Besides, the ones who decide who will become the next President of the U.S. will be moderates c.q. centrists c.q. independents. Not the ‘liberal base’, nor the ‘conservative’ one. Obviously, being a (moderate) liberal conservative leads me to disagree with Edwards every now and then, to say the least. An example as provided by the WaPo:
Edwards also refuses to let his domestic ambitions be held hostage to the words “fiscal discipline.” Though he acknowledges that the deficit has become a problem under Bush, he said the bigger priority is investing in health care, alternative energy sources, and programs designed to strengthen the middle class and attack poverty. His ultimate goal may be to hold the deficit roughly where it is or slightly lower, rather than seeking a substantial reduction. “If we do energy, health care, serious middle-class poverty proposals, then I think we’re talking about just trying to keep the deficit in check,” he said.
I understand where he is coming from, but having a somewhat normal deficit should – in my Dutch opinion – be priority number one for any administration, everywhere. Fiscal responsibility is Step One. If I were American, I would object to Edwards’s view on the deficit: I would argue that it should not just be ‘contained’, a future President should be dedicated to exterminate the deficit alltogether, or at least to dramatically reduce the deficit. What’s happening now is that future generations will be forced to pay off the debt caused by this generation (or better said administration). That is not a ‘present’ I would like to give to my children and grandchildren. Edwards has quite clearly grown up. Proof?
Edwards said he no longer believes, as he once did, that presidential campaigns turn on issues and policy positions. Instead they are forums for demonstrating the capacity to inspire and lead. “I think presidential elections are a very different breed of cat,” he said in June. “I think they’re much more about character and leadership and integrity than they are about a particular issue.”
And I would agree with that, at least to a degree. One cannot run on an ‘empty’ platform, but one of the most important aspects seems, indeed, to be whether or not voters consider one to be a good and inspiring leader. Lastly, if Edwards would ask little old me for advise, I would tell him to try to appeal to moderates / centrists more. Without them, he will never finish better than second-best.
P.S.
This post and “looking back” have been published at my own blog first. Not because I want to drive up my hits, but because TMV was temporarily offline
opinions powered by SendLove.to
13 Responses to “Edwards Appeals to Liberal Base”
Edwards is proposing a massive expansion of the welfare benefits while maintaining an open borders policy. With those positions he cannot say anything about either the budget deficit or the national debt other than to say that expanding them does not mean anything.
I would like to hear people’s thoughts about what a candidate could and should say to persuade moderate and centrist voters?
It seems to me that those of us in the middle are listening for more insight about how we pay for improving government operations. The Left wants an improved safety net and the right doesn’t want to pay for it. So what’s the pragmatic compromise? I posted a similar question just yesterday.
Superdestroyer,
I do not quite see how sensible voters could vote for someone who is NOT dedicated to eradicating the deficit.
Something about John Edwards reminds me of Bobby Kennedy. He’s sincere, appealing and earnest. He seems to have found his political identity in the aftermath of Katrina, and genuinely wants to work towards correcting inequality in this country. I commend him for his efforts and admire him. That is not the same thing as thinking that that strategy is a winning one.
Either a centrist candidate like Clinton will win, or a candidate like Giuliani or McCain, who project toughness on the issue of national security. The outcome is dependent upon what is happening in Iraq, and if we have had another attack on our soil.
I don’t think a candidate like Edwards, although he is charismatic, will appeal to mainstream voters.
I think 2008 may actually be a good year for a liberal–or for a woman or black–candidate.
Do you think the war is going to go better?
I don’t think so.
That is the foundation for my guess: Many, many people will be so sick and tired of President Bush that they won’t vote for any Republican–and they’ll be willing to vote for any Democrat.
Michael, look back at Reagan, Bush I and Bush II administrations. The GOP proved, sadly, that we don’t really care about the deficit or the debt. We intend to use it up, lambast anyone who cares about the debt as “tax and spend.” We have become so selfish we are content to pass all that debt on to our kids. I believe the voters can be manipulated time and again to vote against their interests. What pragmatic solutions are possible in such a scenario.
This is a pretty erudite crowd yet there are plenty here who fully support uncontrolled corporate greed at any cost, the elimination of all environmental, labor and consumer safety regulation; unfettered control of politics by corporate “free speech;” the current assault on civil liberties; even the establishment of a permanent aristocracy that doesn’t pay for public services or other government obligations (as long as none of their income is from actually working) and the right of the rich to hand that untouched wealth tax-free to their children.
I think the only pragmatic solution to all this is to remove the toxic effect of money on policymaking and corporate control of media to create an electorate that is informed rather than manipulated, and elect leaders who work for the public good rather than constantly pandering to their financial supporters.
The only way that Edwards could impliment his programs would be to deficit spend. He is proposing 100′s of billions of dollars of additional spending in addition to facing a structural deficits currently of $250 billion. To eliminate the defiict he would have have to raise at least $500 billion in taxes in FY 09. There is no way to do that without causing a recession and adding to the deficit.
Remember, from a politicians point of view, borrowing pushes some of the pain into the future (especially if borrowed from foreign countries. To raise taxes to pay for new programs put all of the costs in the current year along with all of the economic impact.
Greendreams,
Remember, every deficit budget during the Reagan and Bush I administrations was approved by a Democratic majority house. Aren’t Tip O’Neill, Jim Wright, and Tom Foley just as responsbile for the deficits of the 1980′s as Republicans since the Constitution gives the House control of the budget?
To be fair, fiscal responsibility and Republicanism are not synonyms. Edwards has all these dreams for the country, all of which will involve spending money, but that doesn’t mean it won’t be spent in line with the budget. If you take out the tax breaks for companies and people that, quite frankly, have done nothing to deserve them, you will get a surge of money to finance all of those goals Edwards lists while still lowering the deficit, albeit more slowly than if healthcare, etc., is not on the table.
As far as his liberalness as a candidate – part of the problem is that Republicans and many moderates (sorry) too easily fall for propaganda. If the actual independent believes anything on Fox News, he/she is not going to vote liberal. So the issue is really: “Can people ignore propaganda and vote on change and issues, as well as party definitions.” There is nothing wrong with being a liberal until Neil Cavuto tells them there is. Edwards’ conservative state status may help him overcome some of those issues among moderates.
http://www.librocrat.com
I have a theory on just how Edwards can appeal to moderate voters. Let the blog-whoring begin:
Librocrat,
Sorry but just . taking out the tax breaks for companies and people that, quite frankly, have done nothing to deserve them will not generate enough money to fund the massive new entitlements that Edwards is proposing even without the all but certain cost overruns.
The only way that Edwards can balance the budget is with massive tax increases along with the adverse economic impacts of the raises.
Librocrat,
To fund the programs that Edwards is proposing will take much more than taking out the tax breaks for companies and people that, quite frankly, have done nothing to deserve them. It should take 100′s of billions of dollars to fund the new entitlements that Edwards wants. $500 billion in additional taxes each year shold definitely have a negative effect on the economy.
I believe both Hillary and Obama are to the left politically of Edwards. Edwards may be trying to appeal to the left, but historically Southern Democrats (which Edwards is)are far to the right of Northern Democrats. Interesting that all 3 front running Dem’s are lawyers. Edwards made his living as a personal injury attorney, which is looked down on by most other lawyers, hence the name “ambulance chasers.” Ever wonder why insurance costs are so high? Thank Mr. Edwards ilk…
Hillary was into corporate law, representing Walmart and even sitting on their board of directors at one time.
Obama was a civil rights attorney in Chicago. He is well spoken and very bright, but I seriously doubt a black civil rights attorney can be elected president. So really Hillary with her big $ campaign chest is the clear front runner… but I wouldn’t count Al Gore out. If he can get enough guillible sheep out there to believe that he is the savior of global warming, then he has a shot.
Yes we have a huge deficit and that is troubling. But the deficit is due largely to 9/11, the war on terror and the wars in Afg. & Iraq.
Let us not forget some basic civics lessons, the administrations don’t really control spending, Congress is in charge of spending. So during the Clinton years, you can thank Congress for reducing the deficit. If Clinton (both of them)had his way we would have been in debt up to our ears and have a socialized health and who knows what else.
btw: Michael what happened to your blog, Liberty & Justice, it seems to be down? ps- how about them Cardinals!