Lean Left

« Previous | Next »

I Would Cacus For Edwards If I Lived in Iowa
Posted by Kevin

I do not live in Iowa, thankfully. (Sorry, I am sure it is a lovely place, but it is nowhere near a large city and there is entirely too much corn for my tastes. I picked corn for a summer when I was 14. Hell is an unending row of un-picked corn under a cloudless sky at the height of summer. Too much of Iowa resembles that remark for me to be comfortable there). I also do not live in a state whose primary is going to matter one tiny bit in this entire process –Tennessee’s primary is, I believe, in December this year (Oops. TN’s primary is on February 5th. I forgot they changed it. The problem is, its buried under the large states taking place that same day. So my vote matters more than I thought, just not as much as I would like) If I had my way, I would choose to live in a state after Iowa — becasue I think how a candidate handles adversity is important — but not one that is so far out that it has no say in the process.

I ended up at Edwards almost through a process of elimination. I eliminated the minor candidates right off the bat. I know that this is not entirely fair, but they have not received the media scrutiny that the major candidates have and I would hate to “caucus” for someone just to find out that some important but not well covered policies turn out to be inferior. So while I admire Dodd for his real leadership on civil liberty and the rule of law, I just am not comfortable with my knowledge level about the rest of his policies. So, umm, Dodd for VP! Or, in all seriousness, Attorney General.

As for three major candidates, I could live with any of them. I am not happy about any of them, really, becasue none of them are really stretching the bounds of the debate on matters that I think are important. They are all, to one degree or another, bound up in the bi-partisan consensus that some degree of American empire is good for the country and good for the world. None of them would fundamentally alter the war on drugs. None of them are as environmentally sound as I would like. None of them would go far enough in restraining government police powers. They are all good candidates, but none of them are truly great.

I eliminated Clinton first. I think she would be a solid president and probably get a good portion of what she wanted done, with a noticeable mount of that portion being things that would make the country incrementally more progressive. And, to be honest, the thought of the complete, rage filled melt down of a large portion of the right wing should she win the white House is a powerful pull. But she is the most conservative of the candidates and her history has apparently taught her that, when in trouble, go to the right. Worse, she has the most hawkish foreign policy team and her instincts appear to be much more martial than Obama and Edwards. So while I would happly vote for her in the general, as a primary candidate, she falls short.

Obama was the next to go. There is a lot I like about Obama. His proposals and policies on open government and emerging technologies and media are, by far, the most far-sighted and far-reaching. Those may seem like esoteric concerns, but they can and have had a far reaching affect on American democracy. What our country knows about how its government operates and what media voices it has access to are critical components of the health of our politics. His record in the Illinois Senate was solidly progressive. His foreign policy instincts and team appear to place much less of an emphasis on military solutions than Clinton. But he has constantly made a habit of running to the right on almost every high profile issue, at least compared to Clinton and Edwards. He is, in a lot of ways, running against his party. There is no doubt that much of his rhetoric is inspiring and meant to create a new governing consensus, but too often that seems to mean using right wing talking points to attack progressivism. As I have mentioned before, that would be acceptable if he was using that rhetoric as cover for real leadership on progressive issues, but he has not. At some point, without evidence to the contrary, you have to take Obama at his word: he intends not to govern progressively but to start from the position of compromise. And that is not a recipe for success, either for the country or for his Presidency. Again, he would be a decent president, but he wouldn’t get much done and what he would get done would not be as progressive as it could have been.

Which brings us to Edwards. And here I find reasons to support a candidate. First, Edwards is the only candidate who seems to understand that the training mission in Iraq is just choosing a more efficient and deadly civil war. I think that demonstrates and willingness to think clearly through foreign policy matters and dow hat is correct, not what the consensus demands. That is a good characteristic for a President to have. Second, Edwards is solid on the environment and on civil liberties, though, again, no candidate goes as far as they should on either of those matters. Third, edwrds was vocal in the fights agaisnt Bush’s judges and things like telecom immunity and the destruction of habeas corpus in a way that Obama and Clinton generally were not. On those matters he lead, to the degree he could sitting outside the Senate, while Obama and Clinton followed.

Most importantly, Edwards is the one candidate who truly seems to understand how much of our lives, economy, and politics are controlled by corporations. Modern capitalism has gone much too far to the laize-faire/corporate control side of the ledger and the Republican party exists, it seems, only to spy on Americans and re-distribute wealth to the top of the economic ladder (a point I will come back to later in the week with my review of Free Lunch). Edwrds seems to understand this and to understand the damage this does to our nation, its institutions and its people. Of all the candidates, he is the most dedicated to fixing what has become a thoroughly corrupted and corrupting system. I don’t know how much he will be able to get done, but I do know that he will start out with the right guiding principles and that what he does get done will likely be much more progessive in nature and scope than what Clinton and, specially, Obama will get done.

Edwards is the first among equals. Clinton and Obama would both be strong candidates and good presidents, but I think Edwards would be the president most likely to make progressive change on the most important issues.

January 3rd, 2008 Politics | 8 comments