For those who are puzzled, shocked or looking for easy explanations to account for the John Edwards success in Iowa, "dirty politics" or a one-dimensional "everyone was out to get Dean" explanation will suffice. The most egregious of this kind of thinking comes in labeling Dennis Kuchinich as a "political whore" for the negotiations between the Kuchinich and Edwards campaign - a move that appears incomprehensible to those who have a fervent but rather one-dimensional understanding of both the anti-war movement and progressive politics.
But John Nichols*, a progressive writer who has supported Dean in the run-up to Iowa, has a pretty sensible read of that arrangement and why it is not inconsistent politics. Speaking this morning on Democracy Now!, Nichols observed that Edwards' strong anti-corporate populism resonates strongly with Kuchinich supporters (especially in places like Iowa) who represent an anti-war constituency that is part of a larger progressive agenda. On the same broadcast, a report from the World Social Forum in Mumbai, India included a clip from Arundhati Roy's keynote address, in which she stressed that Iraq is the convergence point for activists and citizens concerned with both militarized imperialism and corporate neo-liberalism. That is, the issue of the
Iraq war isn't just an issue of the illegal invasion, or the questionable authorization vote; contemporary Iraq is a place where a destructive military occupation meets unbridled corporate privatization and crony capitalism.
The juxtaposition of these two reports highlighted for me a dimension of the current campaigns that has nagged me for a long time. That mainstream media's understanding of politics, and especially of the Left, is superficial goes without saying. More disturbing, however, is how superficial the Left's own understanding of politics and itself can also be. Since Howard Dean emerged as the "anti-war" candidate, there has been a very one-dimensional understanding of that strong constituency that opposed the Bush Administration's actions in Iraq. It is a vitally important aspect of this election, but I don't believe that it has been realistically or honestly addressed by anyone. It has been hard to articulate because as a campaign issue and a motivating factor, it is emotionally powerful, but I'm wondering if the so-called "surprise" of Iowa isn't as good a time as any to sit down and really think it through. Progressive politics is about more than where your money comes from or what your position is on one highly visible issue. I'm wondering if this is one of the unnoticed aspects of the Dean campaign that also helped to contribute to the outcomes we saw in Iowa.
*PS: If you go back and re-read Nichols Madison Capital Times article of 13 Jan., he looks pretty prescient, it appears that he caught wind of the Edwards' movement earlier than most pundits.