Of all the major presidential candidates from both parties, John Edwards’ is probably the one whose persona draws most heavily on his rural origins. This has been felt in his Iowa campaign, as you can see on his campaign website (link provided below). But what are Edwards’ real ideas for our country’s small towns, small farms, and other rural areas? What are their strengths and weaknesses? Where does Edwards show imagination and insight, and where does he disappoint?
The Edwards plan - “Restoring Hope to Rural America” - can be found in its entirety here.
Cross-posted at The Seminal.
OVERVIEW
The Edwards plan focuses broadly on three areas: economy, community, and culture. Within each category are proposals related to specific issues. The proposals vary in quality and originality. Many are skillfully introduced with striking statistics. They balance creative, targeted solutions with a good dose of common sense. Others are vague and boring. At worst, a few feel like weak attempts to cater to certain constituencies or, worse yet, convince the reader that Edwards fits into a certain image or persona. All politicians, of course, are perceived sometimes as fake or catering. But Edwards, who has often been dogged by the accusation that he is not genuine, might have to work extra hard to convince voters of his seriousness and integrity.
One impressive aspect of Edwards’ plan is the boldness he shows in taking on some big targets: corporations and megafarms, America’s dependence on oil, and government corruption. The personal connection Edwards feels for rural issues is evident, and this conviction carries over into his recognition that rural issues are related to some of the most serious issues our entire country faces: poverty, drugs, education, and healthcare.
Let’s look at the specifics:
STRONG PROPOSALS
Enforcing what we do have: I applaud politicians who start their campaigns for reform by reforming the way our current laws are enforced and interpreted. I liked sections such as this one:
Edwards recognizes that the rules are stacked against family farmers. He supports the strict enforcement of laws against anticompetitive mergers, unfair pricing, and country-of-origin laws.
And this:
More than half of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s $70 billion in rural development funds has actually gone to metropolitan regions, suburbs of midsize cities, and resort towns like Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket. Edwards will rewrite these funding rules and get resources to the intended isolated and disadvantaged areas.
Improving rural citizens’ access to resources: Edwards plans to aggressively address the most critical deficiencies in rural life, especially access to quality education, healthcare, and bank loans. He plans to offer seed money in large doses to rural entrepreneurs and prevent bank discrimination against rural populations. He offers innovative ideas like giving college scholarships to teachers who sign up to go to rural schools. Edwards also proposes raising the minimum wage and lowering taxes for low-income workers. Recognizing the connection between the growth of the healthcare industry and the creation of jobs, Edwards also rightly points out that improvements in rural healthcare could spur economic development.
Limiting farm subsidies: Speaking out against corporate farm interests is a bold move. Edwards’ eagerness to connect with rural voters shows in his attitudes toward misplaced subsidies more than in any other facet of his plan.
ORIGINAL IDEAS
Improving internet access: A friend of mine once said that he believes access to the internet should be one of the criteria used in determining whether or not a person falls below the poverty line, and I agree. Apparently Edwards does too - I was surprised, and pleased, to see him include increasing broadband access in rural areas on his list of issues. Linked with this idea is his strategy of improving rural education by incorporating distance learning programs into curricula.
Improving water quality: Perhaps Edwards’ attention to water shouldn’t qualify as original or surprising. But I think many politicians would have left this item off their list. Additionally, I think Edwards’ presentation of the issue - including clean water as part of rural culture - reframes what is usually an “environmentalist” issue in a refreshing and powerful way.
WEAKNESSES
Energy issues: I strongly agree with Edwards that America should shed its dependence on oil. But I found his main ideas a bit troubling:
Edwards will establish the New Energy Economy Fund to jumpstart renewable energies. He will create new markets for ethanol by requiring all new cars to run on both gasoline and E85 ethanol, requiring 25 percent of chain gas stations to carry E85, supporting E20 and E30 fuels, and working with U.S. automakers to make efficient and alternative-fuel cars. He will support locally owned biorefineries with start-up capital. He will also require 25 percent of electricity to be generated from renewable sources by 2025.
With all the bad press ethanol has been receiving lately, Edwards could have been a lot more thoughtful about his presentation. How does he justify his support of ethanol? Why E85? Explaining himself more thoroughly on this issue would be a great way to connect with voters, especially those who are confused or skeptical about alternative energy. Instead he hurts trust by skimming too quickly over a controversial subject - and possibly by seeming too eager to cater toward ethanol interests.
Drugs: Edwards’ proposals related to combating the meth scourge are vague and unimpressive. The only specific policy he cites is the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment program for prisoners, a program that already exists. Indeed, he has only one short paragraph about drug problems, and seems not to have any bold or original ideas on the subject. Whereas on other issues he addressed the root causes of the problem, here he portrays the drug problem as one that can be solved largely through tougher enforcement. I would prefer a candidate who advocates a real change of strategy in the War on Drugs.
Guns: Here Edwards seems to be pandering to both sides of the gun control divide, and as a result his suggestions are bound to please neither. Furthermore, his attempts to sound like he will be “tough on crime” are just as unconvincing here as they are in the section on drugs.
WRAP-UP
John Edwards’ plan for “Restoring Hope to Rural America” contains a number of bold, intelligent, and innovative strategies for improving conditions of life in rural areas. Particularly impressive are his ideas about education, internet access, and economic development. He is not afraid to take on big targets, and his deep awareness of rural issues is sure to resonate with rural voters. Yet his plan also holds some major failings, especially in Edwards’ approach to energy issues. As Edwards continues to develop his ideas, he would do well to apply the same degree of research and thoughtfulness to all issues that he shows in discussing economic and educational ones. At his best, he seems knowledgeable and well-connected to rural needs. At his worst, he seems vague and insincere. Given the many strengths of his proposal, I hope he can remedy some of its shortcomings as his campaign continues.