Recently, I engaged in a discussion with another Dkos’er regarding our support and preferences for POTUS. It was an nice to have a good exchange without invective, chest beating, berating each other, or allegations and/or speculation about undisclosed motives. There is too much of that here at Dkos. Along with the nitpicking and petty one-upsmanship, it often makes fruitful communication damn near impossible.
Anyway, in our exchange, I had a chance to better articulate the reasons why I support John Edwards. In doing so, this diary was born. Now that you know what the subject matter is, feel free to stop or read on. Just know that what follows is personal opinion, not supported by any facts, developed in a stream of consciousness way.
The genesis of the exchange, to a large extent, revolved around the issue of national security in the election of 2008. Other issues were also discussed. Personally, I don't think national security, per se, will be the largest issue. Consensus is forming about leaving Iraq. We may be headed into a recession. If there is a downturn that affects the overall economy, it will overshadow Iraq. Matters of domestic security, health care, economic survival, the environment and climate change, poverty, all of these are now interrelated in the concept of national security.
People see what a mess Bush has made, not only in national security, but in our world standing. Through the Democratic Congress, the citizenry will hopefully come to see that Republicans have created a false front of national security while actually making us weaker on so many levels. Iraq and Katrina made the American people wake up to the false reality created by the Republicans. That was what the election of 2006 was about. Now, we have to start working together if we expect the American way to survive as the world shrinks and others want a piece of the pie.
Regarding the traditional notion of national security, insofar as dealing with Al Queda and belligerent countries, it is not something we can do alone with raw power. Success depends on skill, diplomacy, knowledge, among other things. In my view, these are not exclusive to any one candidate. There is no dearth of incredible smart and competent people that a POTUS can call to assist in decision making. But so long as we are seen as a danger to others in the world, our surplus of knowledge, diplomatic skills and military might will never be enough. Thus, the less we are seen as a danger to others, the easier it will be to accomplish our goals. It's a matter of creating the right climate to successfully do the work necessary.
Overall, I believe we will be more secure when we are seen and become a partner in solving the world's problems. Not just for our own self-interest, but for the interest of humanity on this fragile planet we all inhabit. That is the way to build national security. That is the way to better build partnerships and coalitions with other countries and peoples, and to tackle the real problems we face. Terrorism is a problem, to be sure, and it will remain. However, if the symptoms that give rise to it are dealt with, poverty, intolerance, ignorance, among others, the world can unite to address the terrorists and their eradication will be easier. Of course, they will always be present, but if we do what is right it will isolate them. Too often we have done the opposite and acted in a way that provide them justification and support for their claims.
Getting to John Edwards, I believe he will make good decisions and provide the face and attitude that conveys to the world that America cares about what happens to everyone, that times are changed, that we are in it together. Edwards will convey this message to Americans as well, that we must look beyond our own selfish interest. I heard him say, recently, that we have to address issues of world concern that may not be in our short term interest, but enhance our long term interest. He was speaking about aids, Darfur, Uganda, at the time. He says much the same, domestically, that we have a responsibility to address poverty, health care, and economic disparity. If we act boldly, not with baby steps, and deal with issues like poverty and suffering in the world, we will again acquire the standing we once had and be able to lead once again. More than ever before, America needs to lead. This goes to global warming, genocide, hunger, and disease. The world is watches us. And if we do right by the world, not seeking to do things in our own selfish interest, then we will be safer. That is true national security.
I believe that Edwards has the ability to persuade Americans that it's in our best long term interest to act globally, to sacrifice for the many, because it gives us and our children the best chance to prosper. We, uniquely, have the capacity to do good, more than any other country, and because it's our responsibility. Edwards has an amazing ability to communicate, and that is a much needed skill for today and tomorrow.
We need a POTUS who can lead, listen, communicate, persuade, cooperate, collaborate. We need someone that can build consensus and motivate us to action, motivate the world for that matter. To me, that is a huge part of being POTUS. As for staffing the Administration, all the Democrats will make good selections and nominate good judges. All will strive to use science and objective knowledge to make better decisions in the public interest and strengthen the country domestically. This, too, increases national security. I have no doubt that others have technical expertise and are capable to do the job. I do not slight their abilities. I just believe that Edwards can do better.
In 2008, I think the country will be ready for a change, and ready to accept the hard challenges ahead. I see Edwards as a transformational figure who can excel from a policy and political standpoint, a new face to lead America into a new era. I see him as someone who has great capacity to learn and grow. Someone who is not afraid to admit a mistake. No one has prior experience as POTUS. There is no guarantee that one who may seem most qualified on paper will therefore succeed. Edwards is not so wedded to Washington or bureacracy that he cannot go outside the envelope. I see this as a large plus that he was able to get away from government before it made him into a careerist bureaucrat.
I am unsure if you follow all that I am saying. I ramble. There's just a feeling I get from seeing Edwards, knowing that it's not about technical qualifications, but intangibles, the ability to lead, to give people hope and optimism, to bring people along so that they come to feel, correctly, that they are acting in their own interest because they not only have a stake, but it is just and right.
A few more thoughts from the exchange, addressing some specific issues. Of course, the list is endless. But this is a diary, not a treatise.
- Edwards has a plan on health care. It's detailed, takes into account that not everyone agrees on just one approach, and it's designed to move toward single payer. He also is honest in saying that it will not be done unless we pay for it with increased revenues.
- Edwards comes from a humble background and has not forgotten his roots. He is proud of his success and wants to create an America where others have the same opportunity to share such success. When it comes to organized labor, Edwards has been there with the workers of all stripes. He is committed to labor as the very best anti-poverty program. He has been in the forefront when it comes to minimum wage and repeatedly involved with SEIU workers and in the anti-WalMart campaign. No one has more commitment to labor than Edwards.
- On Iraq, you can differ, but Edwards voted and mistakenly gave Bush authority. Some argue that others have not been completely unequivocal in their positions, before, during and after. I leave that matter for another time. I will just say that Edwards talked about the need for obtaining leverage in order to avoid a conflict, that the UN involvement was crucial, and that force was a last resort. I believe he meant it, and those who call him a cheerleader or warmonger are mistaken. Edwards, as POTUS, would not have started a war with Iraq like Bush. Nevertheless, Edwards was wrong. He did not anticipate that Bush would be so deceitful, so incompetent. Thereafter, before he became John Kerry’s running mate, he voted against giving Bush another $87 billion for the war. If not subsequently aligned to the Kerry position as running mate, it is reasonably arguable that he would have been more outspoken before the 2004 election. Presently, Edwards is a vocal opponent of the war. He supports Kennedy and Murtha. He has submitted his own plan calling for immediate redeployment of at least 40,000 troops. He questions the validity of the 2002 AUMF as it now exists. To me, Edwards ability to admit his error is significant. Lincoln once said: "I’d like to believe I’m smarter today than I was yesterday. I know things now I didn’t know then." That illustrates Edwards. As we all know from Bush, the inability to admit error can have tragic consequences.
- On Iran and dealing with adversaries, all the candidates agree that it's important to talk, that force is a last resort, that all options should remain on the table. Their approaches are not dissimilar. Edwards has gone into detail many times regarding how he would approach Iran. He talked recently of a potential non-aggression agreement with Iran. He has defined a carrot and stick approach, using leverage through Europe and trying to get China and Russia more involved. He has spoken about how to deal with China and Pakistan. He has traveled to Africa, and suggested ways to deal with the matter of genocide in Darfur and Uganda, and aids and poverty on the continent and beyond. He has made a determined effort to explore the world and understand its problems. He has spoken with many world leaders, and developed an approach to reinstitute American leadership in the world, based on out actions, not just our raw power.
All the candidates are human, like all of us. All have had their judgment questioned from time to time. This is not about jumping on anyone else. I will vote for any Democrat that chooses to run and win the nomination. On 2-25-07, Doris Kearns Goodwin appeared on Meet the Press, and had the following to say about the 2008 campaign:
"Well, I think the fact that it’s going to be so long, and the fact that it’s going to be so heated means that temperament is going to be the determinate. I mean, how these people respond on the campaign trail to the ups and downs really will tell us something about them. I’ve always thought we should be looking at that even more than we look at their past stands on issues 30 years prior, 20, 10 years prior. Have they acknowledged mistakes when they made them? Have they a staff around them that’s loyal, that when something gets screwed up on the staff, they take responsibility or do they push it onto somebody else? There’s going to be all sorts of ways we’re going to look at this as we go along. And I think have they got a staff around them that tells them bad news? We can see a microcosm, from this two years that we’re going to be going through, the kind of leader they’re going to be. And that’s, in some ways, as important as experience. It’s temperament, it’s character. And those questions, and the way those people answered it, suggest that they’re looking at those qualities of temperament. And that’s key in my judgment."
To me, John Edwards has a temperament and character that appeal to me. I like his demeanor and sincerity, along with his positions. I like his expressed concern for the average person, workers, those in poverty. These are the people I care about. I like that he is plain spoken and projects a young and positive image. I like that he is actually runiing for the job, that he wants to be POTUS. I like that he has set forth detailed plans and has a way of framing issues and talking to people, not at people. I like that he wants to bring people along. He calls on us all to join with him and make change, not just rely upon him.
No need to comment, though all are welcome to convey their thoughts. This was more for me than you anyway. But if you liked it, or want to say anything, that’s what the comments are for, and they are welcome.