I perceive these as dark times for our country. Not only have we just endured 7 years of the worst and most lawless presidential administration in our nation’s history, along with the failure of our Congress to respond accordingly; but it appears likely that for the first time since 1972, when I first became old enough to vote in a presidential election, I will be disappointed in my Party’s choice of nominee. Yes, I’ll still vote for him or her, for reasons that I have
previously explained. But if either of the two current front runners wins this nomination I will have difficulty mustering up much enthusiasm – unless I change my mind about them, which is still possible.
Since 1972, my main criteria for feeling good about the Democratic nominee has been adherence to the general liberal principles of the Democratic Party, going at least as far back as FDR and his New Deal. In domestic affairs, that means at the very least, recognizing that the purpose of government is to improve the lives of the American people –
not to cater to special interests at the
expense of the American people. And in foreign affairs, that means recognizing the basic principles of international law as put forth in the
United Nations Charter, especially the principle that war should be used
only as a last resort to defend the vital interests of our country.
I have serious concerns about the extent to which our two front runners adhere to those basic principles. In both cases, there is evidence for and against. Though I have serious concerns about both frontrunners, this post focuses on the contrast between the world views of Obama and Edwards, since this is something I have thought a lot about recently.
Emphasis of the Edwards campaign on fighting povertyMy initial opinion of John Edwards was mainly formed in 2003-4 during his presidential campaign. What impressed me most about him was his emphasis on poverty – a theme that I don’t recall being emphasized by a serious major party presidential candidate since I’ve been old enough to vote – with the possible exception of George McGovern in 1972.
What was so surprising about Edwards’ emphasis on that issue was that poverty is considered a losing campaign issue in this country. Those most affected by it are the least likely to vote, and they certainly don’t contribute much money to political campaigns. Furthermore, it’s almost impossible to raise the subject without being
accused of “class warfare”.
Yet, as I discuss in
this post, Edwards has not only made poverty a centerpiece of both his 2004 and 2008 presidential campaigns, but he has developed
comprehensive plans for eradicating poverty in our country.
This is extremely important in my view. In a slight revision of one of
Jesus’ most famous quotes, I would say of presidential candidates that whatever they neglect to do for the least powerful of their constituents they neglect to do for their country.
One America or Two Americas – The striking difference between Obama and Edwards at the 2004 Democratic National ConventionThe contrast between the world views of Edwards and Obama was starkly evident at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when Obama exploded onto the national scene with his “
One America” speech. At the very same convention where Obama spoke of “One America”, the theme of Edwards’ speech, consistent with his presidential campaign, was “Two Americas”. That theme indicated a straight forward acknowledgement of the
increasing income disparity in our country to Gilded Age proportions and
37 million Americans (12.7% of the U.S. population) living in poverty.
Obama’s theme of “One America” was optimistic, hopeful, and “politically correct”, and it was very enthusiastically received by a large number of Americans. Edwards’ theme of “Two Americas” was more daring and less “politically correct”, in the sense that most Americans don’t like to hear criticism of their country. But it certainly depicted the reality of the current state of our nation much better than Obama’s speech did.
An article in
The Nation appearing soon after the Convention opined that it isn’t difficult to reconcile Obama’s “One America” theme with Edwards’ “Two Americas” theme. The apparent basis of that opinion was that Obama was speaking of an
aspiration, whereas Edwards was speaking of the current
reality. But it’s not at all clear to me that Obama was speaking of an aspiration, rather than what he considered to be a reality. For example, Obama said “There's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America”. That’s a nice aspiration, but it was stated as a fact rather than as an aspiration. I agree more with what Paul Krugman had to say on the subject, in “
The Conscience of a Liberal”, as much more reflective of current reality:
The central fact of modern American political life is the control of the Republican Party by movement conservatives, whose vision of what America should be is completely antithetical to that of the progressive movement…
To be fair to Obama, he did note in his speech that there is a lot of work to be done, and he was reasonably specific about some of the issues that need work. I think that this is what gets to the heart of my ambivalence about him. He does in fact espouse many of the liberal principles that are so important to me. But then he says things that seem to negate those principles – even in the same speech or the same book (more on that shortly). He acknowledges many of the problems that we have in our country, but it is not clear to me how serious he is about addressing those problems. Why acknowledge, for example, that “With just a slight change in priorities, we can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all”, in a speech in which the theme is “One America”?
A few words on partisanship vs. bi-partisanshipStrongly related to the “One America”/”Two Americas” difference in the views of Obama and Edwards are their views towards partisanship versus bi-partisanship. Obama repeatedly emphasizes the need for more bi-partisanship in our country, whereas Edwards repeatedly emphasizes the need to oppose the rich and powerful in order to provide more opportunities for the poor and powerless. I am much more in agreement with Edwards than Obama on this issue. I believe that Paul Krugman nails the bottom line for this issue very well. Following his above-noted statement on how right wing ideologues have taken over the Republican Party, Krugman continues:
Because of that control, the notion, beloved by political pundits, that we can make progress through bipartisan consensus is simply foolish. To be a progressive, then, means being partisan – at least for now. The only way a progressive agenda can be enacted is if Democrats have both the presidency and a large enough majority in Congress to overcome Republican opposition. And achieving that kind of political preponderance will require leadership that makes opponents of the progressive agenda pay a political price for their obstructionism – leadership that, like FDR, welcomes the hatred of the interest groups trying to prevent us from making our society better.
I absolutely agree with that. I think that failure to recognize the need for partisanship in today’s political climate is foolish – as Krugman says.
From Obama’s autobiography – “The Audacity of Hope”The thing that bothers me most about Obama’s general views is a few passages from his book, “
The Audacity of Hope”. Those few passages worry me far more than his theme of “One America” that he spoke of at the Democratic Convention of 2004. I’ve
said before that Obama has a lot of good and creative things to say in his book. So why should I hold a few pages against him, when the good majority of his book is pretty good? That’s what I’d like to explain here, and ask if people think that I’m making too big a deal of this. First I’ll quote some of the paragraphs (all from the first chapter) that upset me the most, and then I’ll discuss why those paragraphs upset me so much:
I also think my party can be smug, detached, and dogmatic at times. I believe in the free market, competition, and entrepreneurship, and think no small number of government programs don’t work as advertised...
We Democrats are just, well, confused. There are those who still champion the old-time religion, defending every New Deal and Great Society program from Republican encroachment, achieving ratings of 100 percent from the liberal interest groups …
Mainly, though, the Democratic Party has become the party of reaction. In reaction to a war that is ill conceived, we appear suspicious of all military action. In reaction to those who proclaim the market can cure all ills, we resist efforts to use market principles to tackle pressing problems… We lose elections and hope for the courts to foil Republican plans. We lose the courts and wait for a White House scandal. And increasingly we feel the need to match the Republican right in stridency and hardball tactics.…
Yet our debate on education seems stuck between those who want to dismantle the public school system and those who would defend an indefensible status quo, between those who say money makes no difference in education and those who want more money without any demonstration that it will be put to good use…
We know that the battle against international terrorism is at once an armed struggle and a contest of ideas… But follow most of our foreign policy debates, and you might believe that we have only two choices – belligerence or isolationism….
Yet publicly it’s difficult to find much soul-searching or introspection on either side of the divide, or even the slightest admission of responsibility for the gridlock…
I began silently registering … the point at which the denunciations of capitalism or American imperialism came too easily, and the freedom from the constraints of monogamy or religion was proclaimed without fully understanding the value of such constraints, and the role of victim was too readily embraced as a means of shedding responsibility, or asserting entitlement… All of which may explain why, as disturbed as I might have been by Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980…and his gratuitous assaults on the poor, I understood his appeal. That Reagan’s message found such a receptive audience spoke not only to his skills as a communicator; it also spoke to the failures of liberal government… For the fact was that government at every level had become too cavalier about spending taxpayer money… A lot of liberal rhetoric did seem to value rights and entitlements over duties and responsibilities… Nevertheless, by promising to side with those who worked hard, obeyed the law, cared for their families, and loved their country, Reagan offered Americans a sense of a common purpose that liberals seemed no longer able to muster….
To be fair, Obama did include a sort of disclaimer:
This telling of the story is too neat, I know… I know of very few elected Democrats who neatly fit the liberal caricature… I won’t deny my preference for the story the Democrats tell, nor my belief that the arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact.
But in my view the disclaimer was rather weak compared to what went before it.
My opinions of Obama’s criticisms of the Democratic PartyThis is how I view some of the above quotes by Obama:
“I think that my party can be smug, detached and dogmatic at times… Mainly though, the Democratic Party has become the Party of reaction.”Those are awfully tough words for a politician to use against his own party. The Democratic Party is not the party of reaction – the Republican Party is. It is statements like these that can and will be used by Republicans against the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is.
“There are those who still champion the old-time religion, defending every New Deal and Great Society program from Republican encroachment…”The New Deal exemplifies what is best about the Democratic Party. It lifted millions out of poverty at the time, and it served for many decades as a bulwark of financial security for the American people. Republican encroachment against New Deal programs since the early 1980s has been one of the worst things to befall our country. This statement by Obama is something I would expect more from a Republican than a Democrat. It belittles the best of the Democratic Party, and it obscures the pressing need we have to reverse Republican encroachment against perhaps the most successful group of programs the U.S. Congress has ever enacted.
“… and achieving ratings of 100% from liberal interest groups”When the term “interest group” is used in a pejorative sense it is generally taken to mean a small group that has a financial interest in a particular political outcome. Thus, if the oil industry participates in the writing of energy legislation, it is acting as an interest group. Groups such as the International Red Cross, human rights organizations, or the ACLU, on the other hand, are not “interest groups” in that sense. It seems to me that lumping such organizations under the term “interest group” diminishes them by implying that their purpose is merely to enhance their own wealth or power.
“In reaction to a war that is ill conceived, we appear suspicious of all military action.”In the first place, members of Congress
should be suspicious of all military action, and I have serious qualms about any Congressperson who isn’t. Secondly, this is a straw man statement if I’ve ever seen one. What military action could he possibly be talking about that Democrats were suspicious of but shouldn’t have been suspicious of? If anything, Democrats and Republicans both have been way too eager to facilitate military action that they
should have been suspicious of. A statement like this does nothing but give credence to the Republican myth that Democrats are “weak on defense”.
“We lose elections and hope for the courts to foil Republican plans.”What on earth is he talking about?
“We lose the courts and wait for a White House scandal.”Wait for a White House scandal? We have a whole pile of more White House scandals right in front us than our country has ever seen, and yet we’re hardly doing anything about it. What is he talking about? Words like this serve only to inhibit Congress from exerting their responsibility to hold the Executive Branch accountable for their actions.
“And increasingly we feel the need to match the Republican right in stridency and hardball tactics.” When’s the last time that happened?
“Yet our debate on education seems stuck between those who want to dismantle the public school system and those who would defend an indefensible status quo, between those who say money makes no difference in education and those who want more money without any demonstration that it will be put to good use.”There he goes again giving credence to another Republican talking point: The stereotypical “tax and spend” liberal.
“We know that the battle against international terrorism is at once an armed struggle and a contest of ideas… But follow most of our foreign policy debates, and you might believe that we have only two choices – belligerence or isolationism.” I find the implication that Democrats have acted as isolationists in regard to George Bush’s “War on Terror” to be ridiculous. The truth is much the opposite – Many Democrats as well as Republicans have served as rubber stamps for the Bush administration’s grab for ever more power and adventurism in foreign affairs. The Iraq War and Military Commissions Act of 2006 are two of the most egregious examples.
“I began silently registering … the point at which the denunciations of capitalism or American imperialism came too easily.”Denunciations of imperialism came too easily?? The United States is currently the most feared and imperialistic country in the world. We have done tremendous harm to numerous countries over the past several decades through our imperialist adventures, the most recent example being our invasion and occupation of Iraq. Denunciations of American imperialism within our own country, especially among politicians, have been far too infrequent. To imply otherwise is to condone and facilitate more of the same.
An overview of the different world views of Edwards vs. ObamaIt has occurred to me that it might be reasonable to excuse Obama’s positioning himself towards the center on the grounds that, as the first African-American in our country to have a good shot at the presidency, he is likely to appear threatening to a number of white voters.
By emphasizing “Two Americas”, John Edwards sends out the message that there is something very wrong with our country, and he intends to change it. By emphasizing “One America”, Obama sends out the message that perhaps not much change is needed. Similar signals are given through Edwards’ emphasis on the need to stand up to the rich and powerful, vs. Obama’s emphasis on bi-partisanship. And I suppose that Obama’s criticisms of Democrats, as I recounted above, are meant to further emphasize his “bi-partisanship”. The end result is that Edwards’ signals are very
threatening to the rich and powerful, whereas Obama’s signals are much more reassuring. It doesn’t matter how often he uses the word “change” in his speeches. Though he uses the word a great deal, the message that he sends out is one of status quo rather than of change.
It may (or may not) be true that there is enough racism in this country today that an African-American candidate for president has to position himself towards the center or the right – thereby making himself appear non-threatening – in order to have a reasonable chance of winning. But if he campaigns towards the center, then what’s to say that he won’t govern towards the center?
The bottom line for me is this: I feel that at this point in our history we badly need a president who will assertively reverse our move to the far right that has occurred over the past three decades. When our leaders speak about poverty in our country or the need to curb the interests of the rich and powerful for the benefit of all Americans, these issues gain new legitimacy in the eyes of the American public. John Edwards has shown that he is not afraid to aggressively pursue that course of action.