More Reasons to Support Edwards
I've often claimed that the reason (besides the Diebold vote-theft in Ohio!) the Kerry/Edwards ticket "lost" in 2004, was the reluctance of John Kerry to stand firmly as the populist candidate willing to take on "big-money" interests. This would have been difficult for him-- as an actual distant cousin of George W. Bush, with as many old, wealthy New England blueblood connections as the current White House resident. Fortunately, John Edwards isn't shackled to a privileged background. Son of a mill-worker, he earned his money attacking huge corporations as a trial lawyer.
It is very heartening to see other progressive bloggers on the same wavelength, here, as regards the real electability of John Edwards:
Why John Edwards wins in a landslide
by adamterando, Fri Nov 30, 2007
by adamterando, Fri Nov 30, 2007
Many polls now have shown that John Edwards typically is the best general election candidate against any Republican opponent. And John Edwards supporters (such as myself) have made note of this as part of his appeal. But some might argue that these trial heats are merely an illusion based on people liking Edwards's sunny disposition or even his wonderful wife, and that once he was actually in the general election, people would turn away from him as a flawed candidate. I don't believe this is true and I actually think his general election poll numbers grossly underestimate his actual strength were he to go up against any Republican in 2008. Here's why.
I don't think there's any argument that of the three major candidates, John Edwards has devoted the most attention to the organized labor movement. He's walked picket lines, he's worked on poverty issues, and just about every chance he gets, he talks about the importance of organized labor as the backbone of the middle class, but more importantly, as the foundation of a strong progressive movement. Edwards gets the fundamental reality that there are class differences in this country. Progressives seek to address the inequalities that arise from these class differences. Organized labor does so through bargaining for better wages and working conditions for their members. But perhaps more importantly, they provide a political education for their members and help to expose the inequities in society while giving their members agency to address these issues through solidarity and political action.
Now why is this important for electing Democrats in general and a Democratic president specifically? Because when class differences are muted, Republicans win. And when class differences are brought to the forefront of the debate (with a skilled politician, sorry Dennis), Democrats win. This does not mean that the candidate has to go out waving a red flag and calling for workers to revolt with a general strike. But it does require that the Democratic candidate makes an effort to draw attention to gross inequalities in society that are hurting families in this country so that multinational corporations can pad their bottom line. In short, it's about subjugating corporate interests to the interests of the people, i.e. populism.
I don't think there's any argument that of the three major candidates, John Edwards has devoted the most attention to the organized labor movement. He's walked picket lines, he's worked on poverty issues, and just about every chance he gets, he talks about the importance of organized labor as the backbone of the middle class, but more importantly, as the foundation of a strong progressive movement. Edwards gets the fundamental reality that there are class differences in this country. Progressives seek to address the inequalities that arise from these class differences. Organized labor does so through bargaining for better wages and working conditions for their members. But perhaps more importantly, they provide a political education for their members and help to expose the inequities in society while giving their members agency to address these issues through solidarity and political action.
Now why is this important for electing Democrats in general and a Democratic president specifically? Because when class differences are muted, Republicans win. And when class differences are brought to the forefront of the debate (with a skilled politician, sorry Dennis), Democrats win. This does not mean that the candidate has to go out waving a red flag and calling for workers to revolt with a general strike. But it does require that the Democratic candidate makes an effort to draw attention to gross inequalities in society that are hurting families in this country so that multinational corporations can pad their bottom line. In short, it's about subjugating corporate interests to the interests of the people, i.e. populism.
Read the rest of this excellent post here.
No comments:
Post a Comment