John Edwards, Vague but Fierce

David Brooks writes how John Edwards is basing his campaign upon his connection to the common man:

I came out to Iowa having read that Edwards had swung left this election campaign. He was going to outflank Clinton and Obama among liberals and then sweep his way to the nomination.

But out here it’s clear that the Edwards campaign is based on the same conviction that organized his last campaign: no one understands regular people the way he does. No one else can get out of a bus in places like Pocahontas, Iowa, and bond with the farmers, nurses and hairstylists the way he can. No one else comes from their ranks the way he does.

The theory of the Edwards campaign is that Obama will fade because of his inexperience, and Democrats in Iowa will be left with a choice about electability. Which of their candidates is going to be able to connect with working-class white voters in Ohio, Virginia, Nevada and Michigan? Ultimately, Iowans won’t make the same mistake they made in 2004. This time they’ll choose him.

And so Edwards tirelessly tours this must-win state, delivering presentations that have three major elements, all of them rooted in his working-class roots. First, there is his cultural traditionalism. Edwards will be talking about an issue, and his voice will rise and he’ll punctuate his argument with a ringing declaration of stern common sense. On education: “Parents can’t just drop their kids off at school and forget about it. Parents have to take responsibility for their children!” On immigration: “They have to learn English!”

Second, Edwards exudes a deep distrust of Washington that can sound almost Reaganesque. “Nothing is going to change if we replace one group of Washington insiders for another group of Washington insiders,” he declares.

And third, there is his belief, which is in tension with his distrust of Washington, that the federal government should be there for those who work hard. He is brimming with government programs — to create public-sector jobs, to provide health insurance, to shift capital to rural America.

If you had to put a label on Edwards, you’d say that he is a culturally conservative anti-Washington liberal.

In concluding, Brooks found some qualities in Edwards which may help him get votes, but the underlying problem remains that Edwards has virtually no meaningful experience in government and continues to come off, as Bob Shrum put it, “a Clinton who hadn’t read the books.”

In a 45-minute conversation, I found him vague about subjects like social mobility and globalization, in a way that Clinton and Obama would not be. Yet beneath the pretty-boy exterior, there is something fierce lurking inside. It comes out in his resentment toward those born to privilege (which helped sour his relationship with John Kerry). And it drives him relentlessly upward, even in the face of illness and tragedy.

It is also interesting to see Brooks describe Edwards as culturally conservative. Edwards is primarily a populist and not a liberal, at least in terms of the aspects of liberalism which I find most important. In considering relatively mainstream views which are lumped together as left of center, a culturally conservative economic populist is about as far as you can get from my views. In reality I think that culturally conservative may not be an accurate description either. He’s primarily a one note candidate who promotes populism without taking a firm ideological stand beyond this. While Edwards is not a cultural conservative, he is not a liberal either, which still makes me unlikely to support him even before considering his many other negatives which I have discussed in other posts.

2 Comments

  1. 1
    VD Hanson says:

    “at least in terms of the aspect of liberalism which I find most important.” makes no sense without knowing what that aspect is, Mr. Chusid.

    Worse, the arrogance of suggesting “which still makes me unlikely to support him,” is fundamentally meaningless since you are essentially a nobody and your opinion carries virtually no weight online.

    Liberals who profess affinity for the little guy should present themselves in a less elitist manner. Even when attacking a fellow liberal.

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    “at least in terms of the aspect of liberalism which I find most important.” makes no sense without knowing what that aspect is, Mr. Chusid.”

    Then read the blog if you are interested, rather than saying something makes no sense because you are uninformed.

    “Worse, the arrogance of suggesting “which still makes me unlikely to support him,” is fundamentally meaningless since you are essentially a nobody and your opinion carries virtually no weight online.”

    I see, only you are important, and only who you support matters.

    If you open your mind a little and look beyond your echo chamber you might realize the problem with your mind set. Democrats cannot win without us independents. My views echo a large number of independents who are rejecting Edwards as is demonstrated in the polls in the early voting states.

    Edwards is running an exclusionary campaign which appeals to a narrow crowd who considers themselves the real Democrats. Guess what–you can’t win many elections without the support of us “pseudo-Democrats.”

    I’m not claiming to have any meaningful influence over election results, but my views are widely quoted on the internet. This includes both in liberal blogs and in that large portion of the internet outside of the liberal blogs. I’m often quoted in forums and blogs of more independent minded people who do not follow the major liberal blogs but find my writing of value for its independence. My posts are often linked to from Salon’s Blog Report, Real Clear Politics, Memeorandum, and many other sites. They also receive wider distribution at the sites of many news organizations such as Reuters and USA Today.

    A liberal writer who will tell it how it is and not follow the party line has much more influence in much of the internet than someone such as you. I may not have much influence, but I bet I have far more than someone like you who is probably read only by people who already share your beliefs.

    “should present themselves in a less elitist manner.”

    Excuse me–who is being elitist here? It is you who claim I’m a nobody with no right to state my preferences among candidates. You can’t get much more elitist than that. Besides, have you no respect for freedom of expression?

    “Even when attacking a fellow liberal.”

    First of all, I’ve already stated that Edwards is a populist, not a liberal. If you want to insist he’s a liberal, fine, I’m not going to argue over labels. The fact remains that his views are quite different from mine.

    Secondly, even if he was a liberal he should not be free from criticism. It is hardly a liberal attitude to overlook his faults because he is on your team. Picking a president is a serious matter and someone who is unfit for the position should be criticized regardless of their views. There has been plenty of criticism of Edwards from liberals and Democrats. I note that you have not disputed anything I have said, but have just relied on ad hominem attacks in your response to this comment.

    Thirdly, in Edwards case his beliefs are rather meaningless. So he threw out his old positons and reinvented himself with a new set of positons based upon his current strategy of concentration on a segment of the progressive blogosphere and on populist voters in Iowa. He looks much more like a person who will say anything to promote his own chances for political power as opposed to a man holding actual convictions.

Leave a comment