Edwards’ final ad in Iowa featured a laid-off Maytag employee telling the story of Edwards promising his 7 year old son to fight for his job. It was a moving ad; just as much a celebration of the common man as it was of Edwards was himself. The town hall we attended was just as much of a celebration: dazzling lights, rock band in the corner, a festive energy, it was just streamers and champagne short of a New Years Eve party.
Like a revival preacher, Edwards bounded to the stage (on time, I might note – the only candidate all weekend with punctuality) with a million dollar smile and a fire and brimstone message. The devil, though, had taken the form of health insurance companies, drug companies, and all the other embodiments of corporate greed that loomed in the public eye. They were evil, he declared. And he was going to fight them, because honest people deserved the chance to succeed and to be treated with dignity.
I believe that a lot of corporations have spent the past 8 years pursuing profits at the expense of the common good. Examples abound: the pursuit of proven, ‘me too’ drugs instead of ones that can save lives, health insurance companies that deny life threatening or preventative care. The sweatshops of China and leaded toys they create need to be counteracted with safe, regulated toys produced by people who are not exploited in their creation.
Edwards’ entire appeal rests on the premise that the only way to fix the problems ailing America is to fight. His pugnaciousness is definitely appealing. It’s reassuring to know that there’s someone looking out for your best interests, particularly when you feel your livelihood being leached away by the greed of corporate elites interested in the bottom line.
But I don’t think his trumpeted approach, forcing drug and insurance companies into line, is feasible. Democrats, particularly the so-called ‘angry left’, have seen the success Republican anger has had at the polls and in Congress, and they want to replicate it. Unfortunately, attacking major corporations is not as effective as attacking the ‘entrenched interests’ that attract Republican ire. Unions, for example, are nowhere near as powerful as the corporations employing their workers, as the writer’s strike has shown. In contrast, the terrorist threat, while very real, is, on a day to day basis, nebulous enough that there will be no press conference response to any attacks.
Health care firms, on the other hand, will dig deep into their pockets to counter any assault – just like they did in the 1993 HillaryCare debacle. The moneyed status quo does not relinquish power at the first sign of a fight.
That’s not the entire issue, though. No matter how much of a political buzzword ‘change’ becomes, the general population grows concerned when new ideas become implemented. When that change is pushed along on a wave of anger, it is difficult to convince people of its effectiveness. The issues, in effect, become clouded by the rage. And when the path toward a better America falters, people yearn for the easier days of yesteryear.
Edwards’ speech and question answering was impressive. The unpolished moments, when the smile and charm slipped a bit, only humanized him. Furthermore, he cast himself as the underdog, the candidate the media ignored – too scared of the upheaval he would cause in the boardrooms. I doubt many in the audience left thinking he was just telling them what he thought they wanted to hear. His passion was just too convincing, even if the message was not.
Throughout the event, I tried to place the familiarity of his words. It shouldn’t have been difficult, though – he was channeling his inner FDR. His stump speech was reminiscent of Roosevelt’s famed 1936 Madison Square Garden speech decrying the plutocrats trying to unseat him. In that speech, he derided his opponents as dishonest, dishonorable, and tyrannical. Edwards’ words weren’t far off.
This was evident in the crowd as well. Obama drew mostly young people, and Hillary’s audience looked like a cross-section of New Hampshire. But most of Edwards’ audience self-identified themselves as union workers or environmental activists. Interestingly, Edwards’ town hall meeting was the only event where LaRouche supporters handed out flyers before the Edwards volunteers could even get you to sign in. The synergy was telling: Edwards did not espouse anything near to LaRouche’s paranoid ravings, but the passion of his populism made him the only Democratic candidate from which LaRouche could conceivably draw supporters.
Edwards, then, was the classic Democratic candidate: railing against big interests, angered by the plight of the working and middle class, and unapologetically ready to enact liberal policies if given the chance. This archetype is an important candidate in any race, because it keeps the interests of the disenfranchised in the debate. However, like the populist revolutionary who can wrest control away from the autocrats, I see it as an effective campaign strategy that translates poorly to good governance.
As someone passing by us afterward mumbled into their coat, he’d make a damn good Attorney General. Just not an effective President.
