Well, my web site traffic has lost 200 hits per day in the last month so I pretty much have to write something or I'm soon going to have to pay people to read a site that hasn't been updated. The nerve.
Anyways, couple of interesting things floated past me while I was lying in wait for hapless animals to wonder into the swamp. The first was this little bit about Edwards and the fact that his base of support seems to be rich white people. Bean had an interesting question that got the internal dialog machine running unattended (yet again)
A large part of Edwards's problem may be his approach, especially when compared to the other seemingly non-establishment candidates (funny that a Clinton would ever be described that way, but that's for another day). But to note that cannot but precipitate this question: can a white male candidate ever be the candidate to help raise a minority group's stature and/or power? Could Edwards have tapped into what Garance identifies as today's winning rhetoric if had wanted to? Would an Edwards win (as unlikely as it seems) mean that Obama and Clinton lost or that the U.S. is not "ready" (whatever the hell that means" for a Black or woman president? To jump off of the comments by the "controversial blogger" whom Garance quotes, can a person who benefits from the establishment be the one to help dismantle it?
This kind of ties in with the whole "authenticity" that consistently raises its ugly (or beautiful, depending on the angle you view it from) head. Most of the time, it seems to my nonobjective viewpoint, this "authenticity" argument is raised by the right wing of American politics - the idea being, of course, to leave only those who have no power at all left to fend for themselves by discrediting anyone who may actually have power from championing the cause.
Of course, the strategy is highly effective because the people who are needing a champion have, without exception, been preyed upon, used and tossed about like a cat tosses about a mouse caught in the field by those who are exploiting them for their victim status. Which makes the whole issue of how to solve the problem the class of people who are in trouble have all that much harder, to be sure. No one really has 100% pure altruistic motives and so it's simply der rigeur to attack anyone who pretends to care about something which doesn't directly affect them.
Libertarians and their more wacko siblings, The Randians, have an elaborate mythology regarding those who would pretend to be altruistic. Just read any of Ayn's screeds works and within 10 minutes you'll quickly see that the Snydly Whiplashes of the plot are anyone who isn't operating from "selfish" motives. Leaving aside the fact that it appears to be the case that altruism is hard wired into our brain, it's clear that "altruism" really isn't the motive. After all, it's pretty clear to me that eliminating poverty and solving the nasty issues of racism isn't just something we should do for the theoretical benefit but are things that would translate into very real and tangible benefits to me personally as a (relatively) rich white guy.
Really, it's a no brainer.
But "no brains" isn't just a clever catch phrase when we're talking about the modern right wing of American politics. It's pretty much an objective fact by now. But I digress.
Going back to the original point, I wonder why people don't find it fascinating that Edward's primary source of backing is from rich, white people. I mean, either Edwards' campaign is a monumental boondoggle of almost mythic proportions (and that's what good libertarian analysis and wing nuts from the Jonah Goldberg school of political analysis would tell us is the case) or something important is going on here.
Think about it. Edwards' primary campaign pitch is that we really need to fix the problems with our class division, race division, etc. Issues of the poor, minorities, and the working poor are the issues that Edwards' has decided to run on. Iraq? It's kind of a side show for him, in that he completely agrees with the net roots position on the matter. But rather than being the "anti-war" candidate, Edwards has chosen to run as the candidate who's going to finally do something about these horribly complex and nasty issues of race and poverty that still plague us today.
And the core of support for his campaign is rich white people.
Now, as I hope is abundantly clear, I certainly don't hold anything against minorities or poor people who are skeptical or even down right incredulous regarding the platform that Edwards has chosen to run on. As I said, there's been no end of people throughout all of history using and abusing them for any number of purposes - political manipulation being prominently featured throughout. But somehow the fact that a bunch of rich white people have decided that it's in their best interest to solve this problem seems to have escaped notice.
We default to arguments about "authenticity". I guess some habits are extremely hard to break.
So, no doubt in my mind that John Edwards' 2008 presidential bid is doomed to fail. The press is already ripping him apart because - well, I don't know why. They just don't like him for some reason known only to the reporter's little tiny pea sized brain hopped up on self important egoism. Any discussion regarding "authenticity" and whether "rich white people" should be allowed to champion the causes of the poor and minorities really is just icing on the cake to be served at the celebration of his ignominious defeat.
Still, it really does seem like it should strike a teeny bit of interest that all his core supporters are rich white people. Rich white people who seem to be passionately interested in solving the problems of the poor and disadvantaged minorities.
Garance abuses statistics to hide the fact that name recognition is at the root of a lot of this. Hillary's national name recognition is 98%; Edwards' is at 80%. (Garance cites Edwards' 97% name recognition in Ohio, where he campaigned a lot in 2004, and neglects to offer national data.) A lot of Democrats -- the poor, especially -- only recognize one name when they're called by pollsters, and it's Hillary Clinton.
I've put up an extended attack on a bunch of the distortions in Garance's article.
Yea, I'd have to say that I pretty much agree with all your points. I do, however, find it impossible to penetrate the defenses with a direct attack - although I've certainly never been able to mount such an attack with the resources and thought on the matter that you are able to bring to bear. I hope that at least some sanity can start to peek through on this subject.
But even granting Garance all her premises and assuming the validity of her arguments, I can't help but feel that it's still missing the point. If, for whatever reason, Edwards is unable to "connect" or "speak for" the constituencies his platform is founded on, there's still the fact that he is pretty much the only candidate basing his campaign on these subjects.
And rather than talk about the positive message that this presents and exploring the issues behind a campaign's focus, people on the left seem intent on finding the flaws or shortcomings.
Something is better than nothing and Edwards is a lot more than just "something". I don't really see the same projection from the other candidates as they have their own hurdles to overcome which forces them to have a different focus. I'd be thrilled to see a person of color or a woman take the highest office in our country. But I'd be far more thrilled to see serious progress on race and economic disparity than seeing the mere symbolic victory that electing Obama or Hillary would represent (aside from what they'd actually do in office, of course).
I'm rather tired of symbolic victories and would like to have something that's going to sustain us for a few generations rather than forgotten when the victory vanishes with the morning dew.
You should read Isabel Paterson's God of the Machine to get a take on an early Rand mentor and her views on altruism; in particular, the essay The Humanitarian with the Guillotine.
After almost all prominent Libertarians not only supported the war with Iraq, but are actively pushing a pro-authoritarian agenda, I'm pretty much convinced that "The Humanitarian with the Guillotine" has been replaced by "The Objectivist with the Military".
Sorry I strolled by so late, but my wife is having a baby in two weeks so I think I have an excuse.
I've never had an affinity for Edwards, and since I think both HRC and he had no excuse for the vote to authorize the use of force of Iraq--sorry, "Bush fooled me" doesn't work--so, while I will vote for the Democratic nominee regardless, if Sen. Clinton or Sen. Edwards is that nominee, I will do so with even more Weltschmertz than usual. HRC = Joe Lieberman. Seriously. And Edwards? Are you f***ing kidding me? Edwards? Man, if I were the Democratic electorate, this guy would f***ing emigrate and seek sanctuary in Burma. (Not really. I'd like to visit Burma someday, I hear Pagan is lovely...)
(Must calm down... Breathe... slowly... breathe... in.... out... Calm down...)
OK, I understand there's a nasty Catch-22 about representing the non-superrich in this country; identity politics says you've got to be a rednecked clod with trashy tastes to represent the toiling masses, but the electoral system says you have to be rich beyond the dreams of avarice to run for anything. So all the elected officials are rich idiots with absolutely no taste, no class, and no manners, but miraculously free of any pretensions to representing the common person.
That said, Edwards illustrates why an extremely rich friend of the poor is often not a very good friend at all. His health care plan says, "Hey, let's use a grab bag of wonkish stuff peddled by consultants that promises cheaper [private-sector] health insurance, then mandate that everyone--actually, the poor who cannot afford health insurance--exercise their "shared responsibility" by buying aforementioned "cheaper" health insurance.
Now, the thing that drives me nuts is that there is no reason to take seriously Team Edwards' claim that the plan--were it implemented--would even slightly reduce health insurance. Yes, people would now be able to buy health insurance in risk pools at group rates; and that might even involve lower rates than we pay presently. But then the unemployed have to buy insurance they don't have income to buy. The poor are going bankrupt, and Edwards is telling us that, after the immense kindness of reducing insurance rates some amount, the least they can do is pony up $500/month for health insurance.
It's buried in the fine print and the platitudes, but I'm already penalized by the bank for having no money. Now I'm going to go to jail because I CAN'T AFFORD A HEALTH PLAN? Excuse me, but isn't this really a closeted poll tax?