So I open up the column, expecting to find Brooks touting the wonders of another Republican. I was pretty shocked to see this:
Every presidential candidate tells a certain sort of story. Some talk about being part of a great movement. Some talk about surviving an ordeal with a band of brothers. John Edwards’s stories begin with family, continue with work and solitary struggle and conclude with triumph over privilege.
http://select.nytimes.com/...
Does this mean anything for Edwards that Brooks finds him appealing???
More below:
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.
I don't know that I agree with this, after seeing Obama connect with people, but I do agree that Edwards has the touch. He notes three things about Edwards:
- Cultural "traditionalism"
- Deep distrust of Washington
- Belief that the federal govt can be/should be used to help those who work hard.
If you had to put a label on Edwards, you’d say that he is a culturally conservative anti-Washington liberal.
All this cohered in January 2004, with his "Two Americas" speech, the best stump speech of the last decade. It was a tight, single-themed argument, weaving the story of his personal rise with a call to heal the rifts that divide the nation.
This time, Edwards is not as exciting a campaigner. But he is more substantive. He seems to have concluded that eloquence alone can’t make him presidential. So he talks less about himself and mixes his bromides with wonkery. His answers on everything from China to ethanol are filled with complex, multipart arguments. He passes on opportunities to be demagogic.
I think this Op-Ed piece is good news for Edwards. It may make some people who would not have looked at him do so. I can't see the downside, even though I dislike Brooks. It surprised me to see such a positive article on a Democrat. It looks good.