Senator Edwards' Next Act?
An article in today's New York Times suggests that John Edwards is remaining in the presidential race because he has no "plan B" after hoping to win the race for so many years.
It's clear that he isn't going to win, and it will become more clear with each primary in the next two weeks. But that doesn't mean that he doesn't have something to say or add to the current debate.
One of the deficits of American politics is that we don't have strong social movements as the labor movement has weakened and the civil rights and women's movements are more remnants of the 1960s and early seventies and now more 'insider' than mass movements. Therefore, everything congregates around the presidential race. ( the right wing does have a strong social movement with the religious right).
We need someone to keep up the public debate about inequality and economic justice someone who doesn't occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, no matter which Democrat wins. Edwards, who has staked his reputation post-Senate on fighting poverty and inequality could assist in building that movement.
We need someone to keep up the public debate about inequality and economic justice someone who doesn't occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, no matter which Democrat wins. Edwards, who has staked his reputation post-Senate on fighting poverty and inequality could assist in building that movement.
Michael Harrington, the author of The Other America, helped make social change without running for office. His book sparked the War on Poverty, and Michael labored to support the unions and keep a tiny group of political activists together, building a youth movement and a network of people who are still out there today working to create a more equal America.
An Edwards "Plan B" could be to keep his voice out there, and continue to work to empower unions and others to fight for social justice.
If Edwards doesn't win in 2008, his plan B could be a 2012 presidency. Because if the public is disappointed by another president who doesn't make real change, it's doubtful American voters will be as gullible in 2012.
Another disappointing presidency might cause many more voters to decide that Edwards' words and refusal to take lobby money were much more critical to real change than they had thought in 2008.
It seems likely that if Edwards does not win you will get your wish and he will continue to work for the social justice he's so passionate about. And in the event of more disappointment, it would set him up nicely for a 2012 win.
January 21, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding American gullibility: see 2004. We bought a steaming plate in 2000, then came back for seconds.
I don't think it will come to (unusual levels of) disappointment, since most Democrats' standards for "acceptable amounts of change" will be very low. But even if it does, I'm not sure anyone has run continuously for President for 8-10 years, or if voters will accept such a candidate. It seems like everyone gets one real shot at running for President (with a chance of winning), and if they lose, that's it. Even Ted Kennedy only got one shot.
I could see Edwards running to succeed someone if he became VP, though I'm not sure he would bring enough to the table for either Obama or Clinton. But I can't see him keeping realistic presidential aspirations alive another 4 years as an outsider.
January 21, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
All points well taken.
Still, if presidents could run for three terms, Bush would not get reelected, so Americans eventually catch on?
If there comes a point when a candidate is needed badly enough, maybe having run previously and let voters know what you stand for could be an asset.
January 21, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
But that doesn't mean that he doesn't have
something to say or add to the current debate.
and just because Hillary or Obama stay in the race doesn't mean they have anything to say either!
To boldly go...
January 21, 2008 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone has something to say.
It's all about listening and trying to understand!
Bonnie
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PaperMachePupArt/
January 21, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stay in the race, John. Keep bringing up populist ideas. But if Hillary cries again please cool it with the stupid remarks.
January 21, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Regardless, I hope Edwards sticks it out through Super Tuesday so I can vote for him. I'm really sick and tired of Iowa and New Hampshire having so damn much power over the electoral process. Two lousy states narrow the field to three candidates. A third insignificant state shrinks the narrative to two viable candidates with Edwards inexplicably "hanging on."
If Edwards doesn't win SC, it will no longer be good enough to just ignore him or express mild puzzlement. The narrative will morph into outright resentment that he won't just give it up already.
It's seriously messed up that the majority of Americans have no meaningful choice of candidate. I think this is a good reason for voter apathy: the race is already over before most people even get to vote. I think it also fuels the perception that all politicians are the same, when the only ones most people ever see are those who polled well in Iowa.
After my experience tabling and phone banking for Howard Dean, I decided to sit out the primary this time, until the election actually happens in Arizona. Once again, I might not even get to vote for my favorite. Thanks again for nothing, Iowa.
January 21, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I, too, want a chance to vote for Edwards in California. My problem is that I want to vote for all of them: for Hillary, who beats her drums with fact after fact, making me believe that she knows enough about the system to actually affect change; for Obama, who spins similar ideas with hopeful oratory, a leader in demeanor, intellect and judgment. But Edwards – Edwards sings a louder song, and I’m in the mood to scream with him. I really believe we can’t make change in this country unless we’re angry enough to reject the interests which have governed our policy since Reagan. (I spit out his name: he institutionalized selfishness in this country). Do we need Edwards’ fire and anger to break the hold of the insurance and other special interests? We might.
January 21, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like this post very much, but my question is:
Are the Democrats the right tool for the job? I ask such an unpleasant question at such an awkward time, because the only candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination that is talking about a real, universal health care scheme on European lines, John Edwards, seems to be going nowhere.
As to the front runners, Hillary had her chance at bringing health care once and failed so miserably that a decade was lost and Obama's idea of sitting around a table for a "friendly chat" about health care with the insurance and pharma crowd is well... Mike Huckabee might say that Barack is "constipated". After Obama's paeans to the Gipper, anyone who expects anything progressive from him is simply indulging in political onanism.
All of this tends to lend credit to Gore Vidal's idea that there is only one political party in the USA, the "Property Party" with a Democratic wing and a Republican wing. In short it looks like nothing much is really going to change very much at all and that is the basic idea of the system, that nothing much change. To say this is a crying shame is a screaming understatement.
As we see, by Elizabeth Warren's quote above, the median American family is heading into a major recession not only without any savings, but in debt as well. Thanks to the bursting housing bubble many people are also going to lose their homes. Obviously in such times, many who have some health insurance will have to cut back on it, or drop it all together. We are talking about a meltdown of the American middle class's self-image and its basic well being. Having abandoned the traditional virtues of thrift and prudence, they stand naked in a very cold breeze.This presents a historic opportunity to create a progressive consciousness that cuts through racial, regional, sexual orientation, religous and ethnic divisions. Nobody wants to get sick and die unattended and no one wants to see their children get sick and die unattended either. The money is there, of course, but it will have to come out of the "defense" budget which, if my memory serves me, is greater than the military expenditures of the next fourteen countries on the list combined. This would mean the end of American militarism as we know it. With a defense budget only bigger than say the next five countries combined we could take care of everybody, right down to braces on little poor girls' teeth.
Most commentators ignore or pretend to ignore what a political sea change a federal, universal health care system would bring to the dynamics of American politics. For example: One of the greatest objections that "conservatives" have against a universal health scheme on European lines, is one they hardly talk about: unions. In Europe the health systems are unionized and the unions are powerful. Doctors, nurses, cleaners etc, are all in unions. So not only would socialized medicine save people from disease, death and humiliation, it would also help to rebuild America's unions that Reagan did so much to cripple.
Health, the end of militarism and the rebirth of the labor movement. Pretty heady stuff, nu? But that is what strategic opportunities are about: the "game changers". They don't come by very often and they are not to be missed. I don't say that most Democratic voters wouldn't like to see all this happen, but if they wait for their "leadership" to pull it off, they are worse than fools. How can I say this in a way that will sound good to the reticent progressive ear. How about, "these are the times that try person's souls"? Or, "Now is the time for all good persons to come to the aid of their country"? This the big one.
http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
January 21, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I want to vote for Edwards on February 5th. I really hope that all of these people calling for him to get out before then don't influence him in any way.
So what that he's not going to win? I want the winner to know that Edwards had real support and that we expect a role for Edwards in the next Democratic administration.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 21, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
My patience with Edwards is wearing thin. His Presidential candidacy has never had much of a leg to stand on, his "populist" themes only emerged after he left the Senate, where he was a reliable DLC, pro-war vote, and he hardly even has any non-political experience that's relevant to leading the free world.
If he could actually find a way to, you know, actually DO something about everything he professes to be concerned about, well, that'd be mighty nice.
January 22, 2008 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's true that Edwards was a voluntary captive child of the DLC during his time in the Senate. But if he's really the type that holds his finger to the political wind (like Hillary), then why isn't he being the dutiful DLC soldier now? His populist message certainly hasn't caught fire with a sufficient number of people across the country, at least so far. Would you respect him anymore if he was going out of his way to mimic Clinton's and Obama's triangulation? Personally, I hope Edwards keeps to his word and stays in this thing right through to the convention.
As far as experience "relevant to leading the free world", I want to know how Obama is any better than Edwards in that regard. And what of Clinton's "35 years of experience"? Do you care to qualify that for me?
January 22, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, let me thank you, Joanne, for writing about John Edwards here at TPM Cafe, where Josh and Greg Sargent have also been making an effort to give the Edwards' campaign more coverage. It's absolutely clear that the Edwards' campaign represents the interests of middle class and poor citizens far better than the other two - and an opportunity to return the Democratic party to it's moral center - but the average person has had little opportunity to figure that out, as coverage of Edwards was dwarfed from the beginning in favor of the glitz candidates.
I agree that Edwards needs to stay in the race in order, as you say, "to keep up the public debate about inequality and economic justice," which has been conspicuously absent in recent election seasons, and that may indeed be his Plan B.
But I wouldn't count Edwards out just yet. I can see a few scenarios where Edwards could still win it:
Scenario One: Tanking economy finally puts the Edwards' campaign in the spotlight
Over the last few days, we've all heard the news reports about the sinking economy. The news this morning is that Merrill-Lynch has forecast a decrease in home prices of from 25% to 30% in the next 2 to 3 years. And worse, they say that the economy is already in a recession. If Democrats were to ask themselves which candidate was way ahead of the curve in proposing, for instance, a economic stimulus plan (he made his proposal way back in December, the other candidates followed later, and this was while Bush was still telling us the economy was strong), perhaps they'd give Edwards a second chance. I note with some amazement that MSNBC has just aired a segment featuring Edwards' Senior Economic Advisor, Leo Hinerly, of Columbia University, explaining why Edwards' economic policies are needed.
Scenario Two: The Clinton-Obama meltdown continues until both are virtually unelectable
They're not doing themselves any favors with the continual bickering and smears against each other. Just maybe, the electorate will decide to go for the grown-up candidate instead.
Scenario Three: Al Gore endorses Edwards
This is the dream scenario, and there's a petition that's just gone up online asking Gore to do just that. (Signatories can hide their names so there is no online security risk. Please sign!) A Gore endorsement would result in lots more attention to Edwards, both in the media and by Democrats willing to take a second look.
Long shots? Maybe. Who knows, really - with such an unusual primary this year, anything could happen and we've got a long way to go yet...
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." --Robert F. Kennedy
January 23, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink