From EPIC to Edwards: Upton Sinclair's Legacy and the 2008 Election

For an entire generation of Americans, Upton Sinclair will be known -- if he is known at all -- as the guy who wrote the book that was the basis for the movie "There Will Be Blood".

To an earlier generation, he was known as the author of muckraking books such as "The Jungle".

Political historians will known Sinclair as one of the most famous members of the American Socialist Party who made history in 1934 when, running as a Democrat he very nearly won election as governor of California.

In the midst of the Great Depression, Sinclair launched his "End Poverty in California" campaign which won nearly 900,000 votes and was stopped only by a hysterical right-wing campaign which claimed his victory would lead to "Communism".

A key lesson from Sinclair's experience was that by running as a Socialist he'd earned only a fraction of the votes he got running as a Democrat.  It was a lesson that it took the American Socialist Party a full generation to learn.  Under the leadership of Michael Harrington, the Socialist Party finally took the decision to work inside the Democratic Party in 1968.

Why the history lesson?

Because I get the feeling sometimes that the John Edwards campaign is our generation's version of the historic 1934 EPIC movement.

There have been politicians, even candidates for President, who have campaigned on anti-corporate platforms.  The 2000 Nader campaign was a recent example of this.  By staying outside the Democratic Party, Nader guaranteed that he'd be seen by many as a spoiler.  And of course he didn't have the remotest chance of winning the White House.

Eight years later, Edwards is running on a campaign not radically different from that of Nader or Sinclair.  He's made ending poverty a personal crusade.  He's taken on corporate power and corporate dominance of Washington in a way that only outsiders have done in the past.

And he's done it while maintaining a strong candidacy in the mainstream of Democratic politics, with an excellent performance in one state and perhaps better ones to follow.

Upton Sinclair didn't succeed with his EPIC campaign, and John Edwards may not succeed either.  But they have pushed the agenda to the left, and raised the issues other candidates would not.

•  I agree

  The only thing that has changed is that--with the fall of the Soviet Union--in socialist political rhetoric the terms "capitalist" and "capitalism" are decidedly passe. Not to worry--the old socialist propaganda can largely be re-used intact by simply doing a global replace with "corporatist" and "corporate." It really means the same thing.

  Try it sometime and see how modern anti-"corporate" texts might have been written 70 years ago.

  by jmknapp on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:05:07 AM PDT

•  pushed the agenda to the left

  Consider where the Overton Window is now, moving the agenda left is a good thing.

  But, are you thinking that Edwards is a subversive socialist, or that the Socialist Party is trying to take over the Democratic Party? (I can't decide if I'm serious about this question or snarky.)

  I think this is a good thing:

  And he's done it while maintaining a strong candidacy in the mainstream of Democratic politics, with an excellent performance in one state and perhaps better ones to follow.

  as well as the desire to end poverty, regardless of what moniker is applied.

  I am an Edwards Democrat!

  by Scubaval on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:34:23 AM PDT

  •  No, Edwards is no socialist

    And I don't think Upton Sinclair in 1934 was campaigning on a socialist platform either.

    Anyway, you can't use the word socialist in America without getting in trouble.

    by ericlee on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:56:46 AM PDT

•  Kind of disagree on pushing the window left

  I think Edwards has clearly shifted the focus of the Democratic primary to the left and to issues like poverty, corporate greed and influence, etc. that otherwise would not have been discussed to any extent is at all. BUT he is not winning versus two less progressive celebrity candidates. To me that means that Democratic primary voters/participants are not as influenced by message (I say this because all are lawyers, Edwards is not Ivy League, Edwards has been widely acknowledged as winning the debates, is more telegenic, etc. .... boils down to message not being key).

  Should either Obama or Hillary win the primary I believe they will riun a far more centrist campaign. Hate to cite Tom DeLay but as part of the Republican SC debate coverage he commented along these lines noting that the Republican ticket would move right of center which is where he believes the country is and that neither Obama (who's voting record makes him far left of center) or Hillary (history of who she is) can move any closer than left of center and outside the majority .... and may be more left than just left of center. As much as I dislike DeLay I think he is correct regarding the general election. He also supported Huck and Mitt as representing the "conservative" base and said Rudy and McCain would set the party back years. I am not a fan of Mitt or Huck but believe they would present problems for the Democratic ticket despite what current polling indicates,

  by Savid on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:16:29 AM PDT