I am not a big fan of hero worship. In fact, I gave up hero worship when I was thirteen years old. It was 1987 and I idolized Sylvester Stallone. I wanted to look like him and be like him. I remember being in this delusional state where I gave him credit for qualities that he may or may not have had based solely on my hero worship. This all came crashing down one day when I was riding in a car with my Dad and I was going on and on about how great Sylvester Stallone was. It was probably a bit amusing for my Dad to listen to the rambling enthusiasms of a thirteen year old but I can imagine his irritation as I waxed on about Stallone’s glorious attributes and apparently went to far when I told my Dad with total sincerity that I thought that Stallone was probably one of the top fifty people in the world in terms of physical strength.
My Dad started laughing at me and immediately corrected me. He said that what I was saying could not possibly be true because, disregarding for a moment the very strong people that existed outside of the public eye; at the very least every professional football player was in all likelihood stronger than my 165 lb. movie hero. As soon as he pointed this out I realized he was right and it shocked me that I had never even considered that. That is the nature of hero worship. It robs you of your ability to objectively assess a person or their ability. As my mythical and imaginary hero was demolished (or at least greatly reduced) before my eyes I realized (subconsciously at the time) that I would not make that mistake again and I like to think that I have taken a more cynical and objective look at all human beings since then.
I say all this because I want to talk about John Edwards and why I think he is the best candidate for our country right now but I want to make it clear that my support for him is based on what I consider to be an objective look at our world and political system. I don’t consider him a savior or a hero or anything else other than a flawed human being and a flawed candidate. And my support for him is based on several assumptions that I ascribe to (and that you may not agree with) based on my analysis of our world separate from these primary elections.
The first premise that I am working off of is this:
Our system is broken. Not in need of repair, not run down, but BROKEN.
If you do not believe that our system is broken then a vote for Clinton or Obama may make sense for you and if that is your premise then we will disagree but I certainly respect your viewpoint. I understand that this premise is questionable and is a product of my personal opinion regarding our current situation.
The strongest case I can make as evidence that our system is broken is to simply have you look at the past 7 years. Voting irregularities, illegal wars, torture, warrant less spying on American citizens, a mind numbing capture of wealth by the top 1%, stagnant or declining wages for the rest, greatly increased costs of living, rampant corruption, dysfunctional health care, explosions in debt both personal and public, significant dollar devaluation, massive trade imbalances, and an incomprehensible lack of justice as the criminals who have overseen this Great Unwinding are assured that they will never answer for their crimes against both humanity and our constitution. Not to mention the fact that we the people have no voice in our government anymore. Every policy, every bit of legislation, every thing that our politicians deem to spend time and effort on is in service of and benefit to corporate interests who have a stranglehold on our democracy and who are intent on keeping it. I would go so far as to say that all of our current challenges, from the occupation of Iraq to our national disgrace of a health care system, from stagnant wages and outsourced jobs to our national debt and declining dollar all have root in this very basic problem of corporate control of our legislature. I cannot speak with absolute clarity as to the intent of our Founding Fathers but I am pretty sure this is not what they had in mind.
That being said, it is my belief that we must initiate change in order for the system to survive and for the middle classes in this country to prosper again.
Now, there are various ways to represent the relative position of the candidates with respect to change in your mind. Some have Edwards and Obama on one side of the divide (representing change) and Clinton on the other (representing status quo). Some have Edwards and Clinton on one side (as practical choices) and view Obama as an untested upstart and therefore a riskier proposition. And finally some have Clinton and Obama in their minds on one side as the two "serious" contenders (largely due to the media blackout of Edwards, IMO) and have Edwards hanging out on the margins with his fiery populist rhetoric as sort of a semi-viable Kucinich.
No matter how you cut it, none of these viewpoints are a completely accurate reflection of reality, as the map is never quite the territory, but these are the three dominant viewpoints that I have heard in any analysis of the top three. I have also heard that all of them represent change to some degree or another and I would agree with that. And seeing as how every candidate on both sides of the aisle is now talking about "Change" it is obvious that voters are hungry for it. In my mind, there are three basic categories of change no matter what the context you are working in. Within any complex system there are three broad approaches. These are:
- Changes within the existing system
- Changes with how you interact with a given system
- Changes of the system itself
In my opinion, Clinton is calling for changes within the existing system; Obama is calling for change in how we interact with our system and only Edwards is calling for a change of the system itself.
Here is Clinton in the New Hampshire debate talking about the type of change she is seeking. She starts out with recognition for the need for change.
Well, let me say first that I think we're all advocating for change. We all want to change the status quo, which is George W. Bush and the Republican domination of Washington for so many years. And we all are putting forth ideas about how best to deliver that change.
Now the problem with that quote, in my mind, is it shows that Clinton is not really aware of the fact that our system is broken. She defines change as moving from Republican to Democrat. In her mind, Republican = status quo and Democrat = change. In my mind the division is better expressed as Corporate Owned Republican or Democrat = status quo versus fighting for the middle class = change.
Clinton also defended her record and held up the following proof that she was an agent for change.
There are 7,000 kids in New Hampshire who have health care because I helped to create the Children's Health Insurance Program. There's 2,700 National Guard and Reserve members who have access to health care, because on a bipartisan basis, I pushed legislation through over the objection of the Pentagon, over the threat of a veto from President Bush.
Now the things she cites are good things and should be commended, but all that they are evidence of is that she is an agent for change within the existing system. All of those changes are little tweaks here and there that are good but inadequate to address the challenges now brought to fruition by 30 years of the corporatist agenda being the only agenda pushed in Washington. She is not talking about changing the system; she is talking about making incremental improvements to a massively broken system. Again, if you feel the system is good but just needs to be tweaked she would probably be an adequate President. But her words make it clear that Clinton is for incremental change very much within the existing framework.
So, you know, I think it is clear that what we need is somebody who can deliver change. And we don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered. The best way to know what change I will produce is to look at the changes that I've already made.
She makes it very clear that changes to the system itself are a false hope and that she will be looking to make changes within the existing system. Fair enough if that is what you are after. If not, then Clinton may not be right for you.
Obama has a slightly different take on change as expressed in his remarks.
And just to wrap up, part of the change that's desperately needed is to enlist the American people in the process of self-government. And one of the areas that I have constantly worked on is not only pushing aside the special interests -- this past year, passing the toughest ethic reform legislation since Watergate -- but also making sure that the government is transparent and accountable. And that's what I think people were responding to in Iowa. We saw it here in New Hampshire today. They want somebody who's taking straight to them about the choices that are ahead, and they want to make sure that government is responding to them directly because folks out there feel the American dream is slipping away. They are working harder for less; they are paying more for health care, for college, for gas at the pump; and they are having a tougher time saving and retiring. And what they don't feel is that the government is listening to them and responding to them.
That's the kind of change that I think we need.
This quote is the embodiment of what I am referring to when I talk about somebody wanting to make changes in how we interact with a given system. He is not talking about transformational change he is talking about changing the way we interact with our government....making our system more accountable and transparent and he is looking for increased participation by Americans in our democratic system. These are all good things but he stops at the door to transformational change and instead substitutes it with vague platitudes about how the American dream is slipping away and how our government is not listening to us.
His example that he cites regarding the ethics reform bill is a classic case of working within the system. A transformational change would involve shutting down K street and pushing for federally funded elections. While I feel that Obama is a good thing for the progressive movement and the Democratic Party he does not go far enough, IMO. And when push comes to shove, he still wants to include the same corporate interests who have pushed America to the brink and allow them to continue to have a disproportionate level of influence in our halls of government.
Contrast both of these approaches with the third way, the way of transformational change, and the way that recognizes the brokenness of our current system. Here is Edwards laying it out clearly for the American voters the type of change he favors.
What's at stake here is a fight for the future of the middle class, and we do have different perspectives on how we'd fight for the middle class, how we'd fight for jobs, how we'd fight for health care.
I believe -- and I believe it very strongly -- that there are entrenched special interests, very well-financed -- some examples are drug companies, insurance companies, oil companies, et cetera -- that stand between America and the change that we need. And I think if you defend the way the system works, it's very hard to take those people on.
And I believe you have to be willing to take on these entrenched special interests. And I think if you're not willing to do it, it is impossible to bring about the change that the country needs.
What he is talking about here is transformational change. Taking away power from those who have proven themselves incapable of wielding it effectively or fairly. If you believe, as I do, that our system is broken then that is the type of change that we are going to need.
So I guess it comes down to do you believe that the system is broken or do you believe that it just needs to be tweaked? To use an admittedly clumsy analogy, if our system of government was a broken down car, Clinton would be for repainting it and pulling out the dents, Obama would be for changing the way in which we drive the car (more turn signals and less road rage) and Edwards would be for scrapping the car, and replacing it with a more modern hybrid engine vehicle that is better suited to today’s world.
The second premise that I am working from here is this:
The economy is going to get worse as we go forward for the near future at least.
This brings me to another reason that I like the Edwards approach. I believe (again, based on analysis that has nothing to do with our Presidential candidate selection process) that economic conditions that will soon be upon us only increase the likelihood of successfully implementing such a strategy. As Wayne Gretzky once said (to paraphrase) "Don’t skate to where the puck is, skate to where the puck is going to be".
As the economy slows further and enters recession and as the last 30 years of rightwing borrow and squander policies come home to roost (already showing up in the value of our dollar and in the shakiness of our financial and credit markets) this sweeping change rhetoric and the story that John Edwards is telling will resonate with increasing amounts of people.
As he turns the attention of the American people from blaming gays, terrorists and immigrants for their flagging prosperity to the true culprits, (the corporatists and there sock puppets in government) and as the economic situation in this country deteriorates it is not hard to visualize a future in which a true groundswell of support sweeps over this country for not only his diagnosis of our problems (corporate stranglehold of our government) but also for his prescription to deal with them. And that is how real change is done, by bringing forth good ideas in a competent manner at the right time. Given my belief that the economic situation is deteriorating, time is the friend of the message of John Edwards where I would say it is not going to be kind to the message of the other two candidates. To talk about incremental change or to sell an ideology of Hope in the face of real economic contraction in the personal economy of millions of Americans sounds like a recipe for massive disappointment, all nicely packaged under a Democratic label. By contrast, the Edwards message whether by design or by luck I do not know, is well positioned and he seems to be skating to where the puck is going to be. Simply put, I believe his message and reality are converging.
Finally, I think John Edwards would be a tremendous warrior in the battle for the hearts and minds of Americans as it plays out in a competitive market for ideas and master narratives. Not because he is necessarily a tremendous warrior (although he may be) but because his message is based on a true representation of what is going on in our world and our system. And his message, although reality based, has not been talked about by any politician in my lifetime that I am aware of. Even if his presidency was not successful at fully implementing the policy changes he says he would work for, his presidency would shove the Overton window hard to the left after it has been drifting right for three decades. Can you imagine the change in the master narratives of this nation if the media was not able to silence a President Edwards or shunt him aside as they have done during the primaries? The master narratives that were injected into our society by FDR after the Great Depression of solidarity and all being in this together were drastically reshaped by the message of greed and personal responsibility (code for your on your own) that was injected by the likes of Reagan and his ilk. It is time that we had a president who did not shove our true problems under a carpet and obfuscate but who clearly and succinctly explains the true nature of our system to all Americans in a way they can understand. I can think of no better way to rock the very foundations of corporate control than to educate the American people as to what is truly going on in their lives and how government policy affects us all and I can think of no better candidate at this time to start to communicate this to all Americans.