John Edwards' populism is a risky bet

[DeepModem Mom]

LAT: John Edwards' populism is a risky bet
The presidential candidate takes a forceful tone on poverty that appeals to the Democratic base but might alienate others.
By Janet Hook, Times Staff Writer
May 28, 2007

....For more than two years, Edwards has been methodically building his campaign around an issue long shunned by leading Democratic candidates: the plight of the poor and working class. He has backed up his public appearances with unusually detailed proposals to provide universal healthcare, raise taxes on the rich and eliminate poverty over the next 30 years....

In adopting poverty and low-wage work as his themes, Edwards has struck a far more combative, populist tone than in his 2004 presidential campaign. And that has helped him elbow into the top tier of a field dominated by better-financed candidates Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) — and has even boosted him to a lead in polls in the key early-voting state of Iowa.

But Edwards' 2008 strategy carries risks, in part because it speaks most directly to a slice of the electorate that has notably little political clout. Perhaps the last major presidential candidate to make fighting poverty a central theme was Sen. Robert F. Kennedy (D-N.Y.) in 1968, before his assassination that June. Some analysts warn that an agenda that might suggest "class warfare" risks alienating middle-class swing voters and moderate Democrats who do not want to revive criticisms that theirs is the party of the poor....

Still, the centrist drift of Bill Clinton's presidency, with its emphasis on reining in welfare and helping the middle class, has left many activists and liberals hungry for a return to the party's traditional commitment to the disadvantaged....

But Edwards' focus on the disenfranchised has also left him open to allegations of hypocrisy. Wealthy from his career as a lawyer, Edwards has been pummeled by reports that he spent $400 for haircuts, built himself a 28,000-square-foot mansion on a 100-acre estate, and did consulting work for a hedge fund that trafficked in offshore investing of the sort he had criticized....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-edwards28may28,0,6745928.story?coll=la-home-nation

[Fovea]

1. That's right

rich people like Edwards and uhh, F.D.R. ... shouldn't be... ummm ...never mind.

[doggyboy]

2. It's more than that

It's not just that rich people take a risk in campaigning on poverty; ANYONE who campaigns on poverty is taking a risk. I find that very sad, and Edwards should be applauded for taking such a risk

[LBJDemocrat]

5. Yup.

But hopefully, Edwards will win; and decades from now, people might say that Edwards' presidency was the end of a long, dark era of "I got mine" sentiments.

[rurallib]

10. Says a hell of a lot about America today that a politician

who campaigns on raising people out of poverty should be taking a risk. I know historically it has always been somewhat risky but probably more so now when we are in the "I got mine fuck you" era. Funny thing is that many who oppose this type of campaign are the poor who have bought into the Republican line.
Isn't helping the poor one of the major tenets of Judeo-Christian religions? Something to talk about but never do.
Helping people out of poverty could be a major impetus to the economy.

[question everything]

15. Two reasons: first - poor people do not vote

never mind the political muscles. They are too busy holding several jobs and tending to their families to actually go out and vote.

This gave confidence to the Bush administration when they passed laws and regulations that hurt the poor.

Second - in this country everyone is dreaming about upward mobility. The reason why there has never and will never be a revolution is that when poor people see rich ones, they want to be like them. They don't hate them, do not begrudge their wealth. They admire them and want to be like them.

Then, of course, it is up to the message. The great thing that happened during the Clinton years was that the economic prosperity and expansion helped everyone, not just the top 1% of the voters.

Reagan was talking about "trickle down" but it happened only in the 90s.

So if Edwards' "populist" message is a Robin Hood one - take from the rich and give to the poor, he will lose.

I donated and voted for Edwards in 2004 now I am still waiting.

He needs to carefully select the message on how he wants to help everyone and leave the "punish the rich" out. Because then the upper middle class and the middle class will start wondering whether they may be next and will rather stay with what they know.

[TwilightGardener]

32. Good points, all.

[shraby]

3. A goodly share of the politicians are rich!

Not just Edwards. Funny the paper doesn't mention this.

[Catchawave]

7. ...nor did they mention it was "earned" wealth

as some politicians inherit or marry into that kind of money. Or like Guiliani, exploited 9-11 to make millions from that tragedy.

Where is the fair and balanced?

[calteacherguy]

30. delete. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

12. FDR Was A Totally Different Animal

For years (1920s), FDR was shunned by the Democratic Party for being too far left. He had a consistant record of fighting for the average Joe and Jane - and the Democratic Party of the 1920s had moved far to the Right, just like today's 'Democratic' Party.

I cannot conceive that FDR would NEVER, EVER vote for permanent job-obliterating 'free' trade with China - nor would FDR co-sponsor a catastrophic war based on lies that were known to him - both things that Edwards did. Moreover, I've visited FDR's summer residence in Canada, and it was no 28,000 square-foot-mansion - perhaps 3,000 square feet, but it held a dozen or more people at a time for the entire summer.

We send an awful message to politicians when we do not hold them accountable for their actual voting records on the issues that count most.

[geek tragedy]

4. It's not really a risk.

If he didn't take this approach, he'd have a 0.00% chance of getting the nomination.

[doggyboy]

13. There's a lot of truth to that

but my experience training dogs has taught me that it's better to praise when they do good than question their motives.

I want politicians to talk about poverty the way Edwards is. Certainly, I'd rather have someone who does that for purely selfless reasons, but I will be more than happy with something less than perfection. I have no desire to do anything that might inhibit a politician for talking poverty, such as questioning their motives.

[geek tragedy]

19. Great point.

I'm not saying that his talking about poverty isn't a good thing--it most certainly is.

[venable]

38. Maybe he actually believes in his cause

maybe he's not doing it because it's the only way, per you, that he can be elected.

[KoKo]

6. Is the LAT's issuing a threat to Edwards? Look at this from the article:

But Edwards' 2008 strategy carries risks, in part because it speaks most directly to a slice of the electorate that has notably little political clout. Perhaps the last major presidential candidate to make fighting poverty a central theme was Sen. Robert F. Kennedy (D-N.Y.) in 1968, before his assassination that June. Some analysts warn that an agenda that might suggest "class warfare" risks alienating middle-class swing voters and moderate Democrats who do not want to revive criticisms that theirs is the party of the poor....

[Catchawave]

11. Whoa...didn't catch that, plus

I'm surprised they forgot to mention he won the Paul Wellstone Award, named after a beloved Democrat 'who died in a small plane crash'.

Horrible journalism, and we all know JE scares the piss out of Wall Street :scared:

[amandabeech]

14. We have class warfare already!

It's the top 20% or even the top 5% against everybody else!

They are the ones that benefit from the "new economy" because they have huge investments, great health care plans, and if employees, get real raises.

Edwards should also mention those just hanging on to the middle class. I'll bet lots of folks could see themselves there, even if they are actually working class now.

[Red Knight]

8. Ridiculous

The fact that this is a story at all says all we need to know about the media. I mean, if being rich excludes you from helping anyone in poverty than this country is screwed. The fact is that only wealthy candidates have a prayer of winning a presidential nomination.

If wealthy people who do care about the poor are simply hypocrites unless they live in a cardboard box than it's time to start making Soylent Green and feeding it to the masses.

It's a strange logic that suggests that these wealthy guys can keep cutting taxes on the wealthy because that makes personal sense for them, and dismisses any notion of altruism or empathy as fantasy.

We want our rich guys to represent the rich and that's that.

Who represents the poor?

Well, by this logic, the poor apparently represent themselves even though they don't have the means to do that. Sorry, Bono...poor African nations do not buy your song of sympathy--you make too much money. It's a ridiculous dismissive arguement that can only thrive in the media environment today where what happens on "The View" is headline news. Haircuts matter more than the state of the nation.

His wealth is a non-issue.

His agenda is the issue.

[dsc]

9. Just once I would like to see this standard applied fairly

Newt Ginrich, the man who left two wives for other women, writes a book extolling the virtues of God in public life and nary a peep. Edwards would have to have gold plated toilets to be as hypocritical as Ginrich.

[Pastiche423]

16. Do you know for a fact that johhny boy

does not have gold plated toilets?

[loyalsister]

17. hmmmmm

Poor people want to be rich? Maybe some. Probably not all. As a matter of fact definitely not all.
Many poor people aspire to have enough money to go to school and have a job that simply pays enough to make a decent living.
Some people don't want to be rich they just don't want the responsibility and don't relate to spending excess. It's a matter of lifestyle and what ultimately becomes a comfort level.
Some people reject the institution as they have been rejected, and live on the street.

I get the impression from reading the posts that few people here truly know real poor people.
Poor people do vote and they have a range of opinions and ideas.

Some poor people do find it to be in poor taste when people show up to soup kitchens in limosines.

Street people vote and they get what's going on when people can walk by living cheerful lives of happy excess and drop their money to ease their conscience, but not stop to have a conversation. People know it when they are being used as a backdrop.

It is a matter of underground etiquette.

The excess of his lifestyle will not bother many people. But it may bother others.

[Cameron27]

37. Very well said,

thank you.

[auburnblu]

18. He's done some dumb things

Building the large house was questionable. Putting pictures of it on his web-site? That was sheer stupidity. Look at me I'm spending millions on a house, isn't my multi-million dolloar house wonderful and impressive. Dumb.

The haircut will be a joke that blows over. The "I joined a hedge fund to learn about the poor" What the hell? How does investing in a group that searches for sunken treasure help you learn about the poor. His gig at UNC, yes that can be linked to learning about the poor. No he joined the hedge fund to take advantage of the financial benefits that come with being a recognized politician.

He needs to fire his PR person and hire someone who will make him focus on his message.

[illinoisprogressive]

20. It's risky but, worth the try. we all want our party back and if Edwards

ends up sacrificing his presidential bid for the saving of our party he will be seen like Gore and Dean are now. Heroes. and that is ultimately something he will be fondly remembered in history.
Sometimes you just gotta take a chance for the good of the country. bravo.

[BrainGlutton]

21. The most urgent thing we need to do is break the disproportionate political power of the rich.

How can we even start to do that if no pol is willing to run on a "punish the rich" message?!

Perhaps we'll never have a classless society, but we COULD have a society where a rich person does not have GROSSLY greater political influence than a poor one.

[EVDebs]

22. A risky bet on populism ? This ain't Vegas, Ms Hook, but I'm ALL IN !!!!!

"...open to allegations of hypocrisy..." Sounds like more of that "some people say" Republican bullshit.

[waiting for hope]

23. This was interesting:

"But Edwards' 2008 strategy carries risks, in part because it speaks most directly to a slice of the electorate that has notably little political clout.."

Is that suggesting that people with smaller incomes won't vote? I think that more people in this country are angry, pissed off and willing to vote now more than ever. The majority of the men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are from middle America, the more rural areas of this country. Edwards is speaking to them, he speaks for me and this may be the defining issue of the election. It is going to be about the economy and Iraq, and Edwards stands firm on both.

[eridani]

24. Why accept the "punishment" frame?

Requiring a larger share to support the public good from those who benefit most from good maintenance of the public sphere is hardly "punishment."

[SoonerPride]

25. Getting back the poor

The right, especially the religious evangelical right, has co-opted the poor on many social issues and gotten them to vote for Republicans whose policies all are centered on expanding the power and wealth of the upper 1% of America. These people actually vote to worsen their plight because of fear of gay marriage or unisex bathrooms, school prayer, and flag burning. Meanwhile they get no help in alleviating their cycle of poverty, family disfunction, substance abuse, childcare, healthcare, etc, which could enable them to rise up from their economic situation.


Making their issues central to the Democratic message is key to victory.

[Jim Sagle]

26. The only "risk" is that Democrats might believe this neoliberal claptrap, and thereby blow their

only real chance of winning.

[WCGreen]

27. They have little poltical clout because the poor are different than you and I...

They just don't vote...

And who can blame them when the democrats are almost as busy demonizing being down on your luck as the GOP...

[LBJDemocrat]

28. And there's more to political influence than voting

The effectiveness of a campaign depends on how well it's financed.

[WCGreen]

35. Well, if the party would stop talking bad about the poor....

And atually get out and campaign and give them some hope for the future....

Well, I'm not expert, but I firmly believe if the folks who feel disconnected from the system are somehow given hope that they will be reconnected in a non perjorative way, they will start voting again....

[Lord Helmet]

29. Populism is a good message is he can pull it off.

[calteacherguy]

31. Edwards is regarded as the most conservative candidate?

"It is not clear whether Edwards' message is reaching far beyond the political elite and activist core. In a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, Edwards was regarded as the most conservative candidate in the Democratic field. And though Edwards is connecting with labor activists, he does not appear to be catching on among minorities who might seem a natural constituency. A recent Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll found that most blacks supported Sens. Clinton or Obama. It found negligible support among blacks for Edwards."

It's facinating to me how the perception of the general public can be so different than the perceptions on DU...or, perhaps, the reality. Perhaps the confusion lies with Edwards moving (at least in his pronouncements) farther left, and people are still thinking of the circa 2004 Edwards. If that is so, perhaps the polls showing him as the most highly electable (along with Obama) should be taken with a grain of salt.

How will voters feel when they learn he is not the most conservative?

[w4rma]

33. Judging by folks on DU, I doubt regular voters would ever believe he's less conservative.

Edwards gets stereotyped as a conservative white male, even though he's the most progressive Democratic candidate in the top tiers.

[calteacherguy]

34. Right, which means...

All these polls showing high approval ratings are based on a perception of him being the "stereotypical white conservative male."

What happens to those approval ratings when voters finally figure out he's positioned himself as the most "liberal" Democrat? I'm just posing the question, I don't know the answer.

[w4rma]

36. I'm saying that Edwards has 'Teflon' in that respect. Anything he says, voters take as being

conservative.

Anyway, all his plans have been good and logical and noone has been able to attack him on them. (In fact, both Hillary and Obama adopted his health care plan, with minor changes, as their own. -- Which I'm very happy with since it means that any Democratic President will pass that health care plan.)

The man is solid.