Why The Inconsistency John Edwards?

John Edwards' central claim to the Democratic nomination is that he alone recognizes the key issue at hand: the pervasive corruption of the system of government instituted by the founders. He has in mind a very specific form of corruption, and one that requires a radical fix.

Moneyed interests have altered the constitutional system established by the founders, such that elected officials no longer represent the public interest but only the interests of a privileged faction.

The solution requires radical systemic reform. But it seems to me that John Edwards falls short of his own standard.

This republic was founded on certain central principles, among which are that the people are the sovereign; that this sovereign is not a single entity but rather a multiplicity of conflicting and overlapping interests and factions; that elected officials must represent the people's competing interests; and that the central purpose of government is to promote the interests of the people as well as to guarantee their fundamental rights. Additionally, and central to Edward's claim here, the government was designed with a system of checks and balances in order to prevent the tyranny of some over others, in order to prevent the interests of some always trumping the interests of others.

That is where the system is currently failing. Because of the unrivaled power of corporate interests to influence the outcome of legislation, in essence putting a privileged faction in control of the Legislative branch, and because movement conservatism has hijacked the Executive and Judiciary branches as well, the system of checks and balances instituted by the founders has been fatally crippled. Time after time legislation that is clearly in the public interest fails because corporate interests defeat them. Certain things are not even debated, not ever voted on, because of corporate influence. And the current system of checks and balances is incapable of dealing with it. John Edward's claim to the nomination rests in his realization that nothing that the other candidates want to do will get done unless the power of the corporations is curbed, and we restore power to the people. This is all true, and I have not heard an adequate response from any of the other candidates. But I also have not heard an adequate response from Edwards.

We all can agree that corporate interests have stood in the way of legislation that is in the public interest over and over again, and that currently there are no checks to their undue influence. This happens in spite of various attempts to curb that influence through (inadequate) campaign finance reforms. Besides failing in their own sphere, these efforts fail also because the influence of moneyed interests is not restricted to campaign financing. Yet while none of the other candidates have addressed this challenge adequately, neither has Edwards, and that is a major flaw for the candidate that has made this his central claim. I have in mind three things.

First, why is John Edwards not in favor of a single payer health care system? A single payer system is the most rational and economic solution to the public interest in health. The only possible reason for not promoting single payer health care is the fear that the insurance industry will oppose and defeat it. But to cave in to the insurance industry is to give in to the very corporate interests that have corrupted representative democracy. Why the inconsistency Mr. Edwards? Are you afraid of taking on the insurance lobby? Or do you have an argument for the superiority of private insurance, where companies make money by denying health care?

Second, it is all very well to claim that you are going to take on the corporate interests. I'm listening. But I have two questions. The problem you have raised is systemic. It needs stronger medicine than just a committed president. It needs something on the level of a constitutional amendment. What, after all, will guarantee that the problem will not return after you are out of office? What reforms are you going to propose at the systemic level? Second, which corporate interests do you have in mind, what public interests are they undermining, and how will you defeat them? Be specific.

Third, the Constitution is also broken due to G. W. Bush's unconstitutional actions, and the Congress' acquiescence. These actions have also corrupted the Constitutional system. How are you going to restore that systemic breach? Why are you not in favor of impeaching Cheney and Bush? Why are you not giving that more play? In the 2004 presidential campaign Howard Dean was not spending time attacking other Democrats. He was attacking George Bush. Why don't you attack George Bush on these debates? Why don't you attack the corporate interests you want to fight? Why do you waste your time attacking the other Democratic candidates? Go after the real threats - the specific corporate interests that have undermined our Constitution, and the Bush officials that have undermined our Constitution. THAT will distinguish you from the rest of the Democratic field.

We are interested. Can we move past the generalities? Our votes hang in the balance. I do regret that the other candidates and the media are not running with this issue. The seriousness of the claim begs for serious treatment - after all, you are saying that the Constitution is broken. But maybe they are not taking your claims more seriously because you don't take yourself seriously. When you call for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, and when you call for a single payer health care system, THEN you will be taking your own arguments seriously.