The Failed Arguments of John Edwards
Another presidential campaign, another also-ran badge for John Edwards. Only this time he won’t even get the VP consolation prize.
Edwards got lost this year amidst the Clinton v. Obama rumble. You could say a rich, middle-aged white guy simply had no shot in a year when historic firsts beckoned the party. But, really, I think voters just weren’t convinced that this patrician with the Southern drawl as meticulously maintained as his hair would really change America for the better.
Oh, sure, he had that speech, the one members of the media fawned over four years ago. The one that sounded so stilted and contrived at the convention in 2004. Two Americas. One for those slimy rich jerks, one for us poor oppressed masses. The fact that Edwards himself is filthy rich was apparently a sign that he knew what he was talking about – rather than an indication that he might be clueless.
Those on the right often accused Edwards of waging class warfare. Maybe in some people’s definition. But, really, he’s just a typical 20th century era liberal who believes people have little hope of a good life without the government assuring them one. That’s not to say he believes in an endless welfare state. He truly loves the virtues of hard work and believes a good day’s labor should earn a good day’s pay. In a perfect world, it should, yes. In this world, the rise of the service economy has left us with lots of jobs whose labor is worth little so that the products we buy might cost less.
John Edwards wanted to fix that, which is a positive mission. But he wasn’t advocating the removal of hurdles that make it difficult for individuals to compete in the free market or lowering the barriers that make it hard for small businesses to prosper. He believed in more regulations, more restrictions, more government that would artificially elevate wages, close off trade and try to hold back the inevitable transition to a global economy. He wanted to protect us from the big, scary free market, not help us operate in it.
A lot of us would love more opportunity to lift ourselves up, but, apparently (thankfully), not many think Edwards’ brand of protectionism is the answer. What Edwards got wrong is that there are not two Americas. It’s not so simple. There are hundreds of Americas. Thousands. And each state, each city, each neighborhood and each person doesn’t need governmental coddling. We need freedom. We need the federal government to cut away the layers of unfairness not add more layers for us to navigate. It’s not even about smaller government. Just smarter government, more focused on creating opportunity than trying to create some unreachable ideal of classlessness.
Edwards’ ideas live on within the Democratic party and can be found in pieces and in wholes in the platforms of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Hopefully, Edwards’ failure will help temper the party’s more protectionist instincts and keep Clinton and Obama focused on other issues. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to help the less fortunate – in fact, the impulse is noble. But some solutions are far better than others.
Cross posted at Maverick Views.
You mean the Two Americas speech Edwards gave at the same convention Obama made a One America speech?
The thing is I believe that the case for Two Americas can be argued for in different ways. One is I think most Americans don’t realize there is poverty and loss of jobs, because poorer industrial or agricultural areas, or even inner cities or minority ghettos are separated from wealthier areas, so average middle class Americans walk around day to day not seeing any poverty, and they think there’s no problem. There is another side of America, that is often ignored. Another is I think a lot of people praise the better economy because the increase in the GDP, while not realizing the GDP doesn’t necessarily indicate economic well being, its more likely to indicate the well being of investors than workers, and while the GDP has gone up, real wages have gone down.
But the problems aren’t what John Edwards said they are. There isn’t some big crisis in the middle class like John Edwards thinks there is. His "two Americas" rhetoric also doesn’t help any.
In short, John Edwards is a bit of a dunce, IMO. Even though personally, I’m opposed to free trade in the form of things like NAFTA, I think John Edwards take on the issue is ridiculous. John Edwards is just pandering, imo, and doesn’t really have a full grasp of the issues. He’s substituting that with what conservatives accurately call "class warfare" rhetoric
I think most Americans don’t realize there is poverty and loss of jobs, because poorer industrial or agricultural areas, or even inner cities or minority ghettos are separated from wealthier areas, so average middle class Americans walk around day to day not seeing any poverty, and they think there’s no problem. There is another side of America, that is often ignored. Another is I think a lot of people praise the better economy because the increase in the GDP, while not realizing the GDP doesn’t necessarily indicate economic well being, its more likely to indicate the well being of investors than workers, and while the GDP has gone up, real wages have gone down.
I don’t agree with you that John Edwards is a dunce, Redfish — he was my preferred candidate — but I do wholeheartedly agree with what you say above. And you said it very well, too.
Kathy,
The reason I said that is because although I’m likely to agree with some of Edwards positions on a pro/con basis, I don’t think he has a good understanding of the issues he’s talking about, and don’t agree with him specifically on details or rhetoric. Also I don’t think its useful to try to portray corporations as bad guys, they do what they need to in order to stay in busiess. The point is the US needs better policies to deal with these things.
Also, its hard to take Edwards seriously, when it looks like he ran for Senate just so he could run for President. You could say the same thing about Hillary and Obama, and to some point its true, but not quite as blatant.
It goes to demonstrate the inclusive-feeling effect of modern populist rhetoric is a fickle thing.
Say what you will about Reagan, but how many people felt (a) they were being left out or (b) they were joining up to "get" other people in the process……..when Reagan spoke? Edwards, on the other hand, just could never shake his trial lawyer upbringing…….he always painted an us vs. them argument. And while lefties rail against the divisive rhetoric of the socons, they fail to realize that sword cuts in any political direction.
And listening to Obama’s SOTU rebuttal, he ought to watch this landmine area as well. He was clearly drifting into Edward’s lane of the highway with that one…………and that is only going to become more tempting in the general campaign………….and that is unlikely to work well against a "includer with actual bonafides thereof" like McCain.
Hey, Redfish.
Well, I’m not sure why you would question his grasp on issues of poverty and financial struggle, because he grew up in a working class family and either experienced those issues directly or saw others experiencing them. I think it’s more someone like Pres. Bush who has little or no grasp on those issues, because he was born to wealth and has always moved in those circles. I also think Edwards "gets" those issues much better than even Hillary Clinton. Obama I think understands them better.
I also don’t agree that Edwards portrays corporations as "bad guys." As a trial lawyer, he has represented clients who’ve been harmed by bad corporate behavior, but to me, if a corporation behaves badly, it *should* be held responsible. I don’t think that implies that *all* corporations are bad.
I agree to a point that corporations "do what they have to do to stay in business," but it’s not as simple as that. Corporations also want to make as much money as possible, and if that means outsourcing Americans’ jobs to Thailand where they can get away with paying workers fifty cents or $1 a day, they will do that. Even if you say that there’s nothing wrong with that, because corporations are mandated and obligated to maximize their profits, I don’t understand why workers are not seen (by neocons and other varieties of right-wingers) as having the right to advocate for *their* interests, which are, put briefly, to make a decent living so that they can live in dignity and support their families. Why are policies that seek to accomplish that bad, while policies that seek to maximize corporate profits are good? Why is it that support for a robust minimum wage, strong unions, job creation programs, publicly funded programs that train workers in marketable skills, expanded unemployment benefits in times of economic stress like now, etc., equates to telling people that "they have little hope of a good life without the government assuring them one"; but voting against minimum wage increases, giving huge tax breaks to corporations with no accountability, union-busting policies, and advising workers to accept givebacks on wages and benefits is NOT seen as sending a message to corporations that they cannot stay in business or make a profit without the government assuring them one?
Oh, good Lord. Forbearance is a virtue, right? I’m going to go practice a little forbearance now.
Kathy,
No, I’m not questioning Edwards’ sincerity with understanding working families, but his understanding of the issue from an economic, political, and social perspective.
And I do agree with you and think government policies naturally keep in check failures of the market. I think thats why there’s anti-monopoly laws, minimum wage laws, and I think that tariffs can be a fair policy. Labor does have to be more involved in things like trade agreements, so they can raise concerns; currently there is no labor representation in the WTO.
However there are valid criticisms against policies that are too friendly towards workers and harsh towards management. For example, Republicans are right when they point out that the minimum wage can cost jobs. The end result has to always be an economic policy which protects the market from its own failures. We have to see welfare programs as a safety net more than an entitlement.
At any rate, what I criticize Edwards on is that I think his approach to this issue is more pandering than good policy-wise. Especially to the degree he’s tried to paint the middle class–not the working class–as being under great stress, because the rich can buy better health care than the middle class. The middle class obviously has its own stresses to deal with, but the "middle class vs the rich" is a bad way to frame the debate . The rich will always and should always be able to pay for better care.
Redfish, thank you for addressing the substance and content of this discussion in a respectful manner.
Now to respond to a couple of your points:
<i>However there are valid criticisms against policies that are too friendly towards workers and harsh towards management.</i>
Maybe, theoretically, but apart from a few isolated periods in history (FDR’s New Deal, for example), that has never been the reality of economic policy in this society. The bias in general has always been toward policies that are extremely friendly toward management and hostile or at best indifferent toward workers. It would certainly be a refreshing problem to have, if economic policy were actually more friendly to workers than it was to management, but I don’t believe I’ve ever seen that in my lifetime.
<i>For example, Republicans are right when they point out that the minimum wage can cost jobs. </i>
No, I don’t believe they are. There is abundant evidence that reasonable increases in the minimum wage to keep up with the cost of living does not lead to significant job loss — certainly nothing approaching the kind of job loss that, say, outsourcing leads to. Businesses adjust. It cuts into their profit margin a little, but I can’t see the fairness in a policy that holds corporate profit margins as sacrosanct by telling workers that they have to continue working for a wage that never goes up as the price of everything that’s needed to live a decent life goes up.
<i>The end result has to always be an economic policy which protects the market from its own failures.</i>
Why? I would like to see an economic policy with a little more balance to it. I don’t see why economic policy always "has to" protect the market from its own failures (in other words, poor decisions) rather than having some protections built in to buffer workers against the financial distress caused by the market’s failures. Why does it seem appropriate to you that individuals in society who are trying to make a living should be responsible for and bear the consequences of the mistakes of management?
<i>We have to see welfare programs as a safety net more than an entitlement.</i>
Well, we don’t even have much of a safety net anymore, either. But setting that aside, I don’t believe in one-sided welfare entitlements that flow only toward big business and not toward individuals in the job market. There really is no accurate way to characterize tax breaks targeted toward corporations and the wealthiest individuals in society other than welfare. It’s unearned money, isn’t it? There’s nothing that corporations have to do to get that money, no requirements that need to be met. There’s no accountability for what they do with the money. I might feel differently if corporations receiving billions of dollars in tax breaks were required to create a specific minimum number of jobs, and keep them in the United States — and if they were penalized for taking the money and running (to Asian sweatshops, i.e.). But that’s not the way it works right now, or ever has.
I fail to see either the logic or the justice in giving gobs of money to corporations with no strings attached, in the name of "helping the market," while denying expanded unemployment benefits, food stamps, income grants, etc., to Americans who are struggling to feed, clothe, and house their families because of the market’s "failures." Why is the first good and the second bad?
<i>The rich will always and should always be able to pay for better care.</i>
Why? I have to tell you, this really horrifies me, although it’s not something I haven’t heard before from conservatives. I don’t see how making access to quality health care conditional on ability to pay makes sense in a democratic, equitable society — much less from a public health standpoint. Public health is a social good — how can you justify holding that hostage to income?
Ooops. I guess I have to use the WSIWYG interface and not html coding.
Kathy ,
Because allowing private health care within a public system allows for more flexibility, it doesn’t only help the rich. For example, poorer people can gain funding for their medical problems in other ways,which may be available, if people don’t think the public system is working well enough. A fully public heath care system does cause problems equal to the problems you have in a fully private system
My point is for economic policy to have balance to it. Harming the quality of life for the workforce is bad for business, and labor being too demanding can be bad for workers. So, in the ideal situation all of these things balance out and everyone helps each other—-but , in practice, sometimes people too narrowly follow their self-interest.
I agree too that the minimum wage instituted wisely is a good policy and if anything just forces the economy to correct itself. But if instituted in a way that isn’t wise, can end up harming workers in the ed.
"There really is no accurate way to characterize tax breaks targeted toward corporations and the wealthiest individuals in society other than welfare. It’s unearned money, isn’t it? There’s nothing that corporations have to do to get that money, no requirements that need to be met. There’s no accountability for what they do with the money."
"I fail to see either the logic or the justice in giving gobs of money to corporations with no strings attached, in the name of "helping the market," while denying expanded unemployment benefits, food stamps, income grants, etc., to Americans who are struggling to feed, clothe, and house their families because of the market’s "failures." Why is the first good and the second bad?"
Ummmmm….humph. Let me try to see if I understand this…correct me if I am wrong, okay?
‘Corporate tax breaks involve an actual transfer of money…from the government to the evil corporations…and we, the people of America….give….this money to the corporations with no strings attached….it’s just free money….from us to them. At the same time….we….the people of America and our government…which represents us…that is, ourselves….while we are umm…giving…these gobs.. yes gobs of money to the corporations..at the same time as we are denying ourselves similar gobs of money..in the form of um…unemployment benefits and food stamps and umm…income grants. Yes, we deny ourselves this money that we would use for…ummm…food! Yes! food and clothing and housing…instead of giving it to ourselves, we give it to corporations..
Did I get that right??? No wonder you are upset with the status quo. Here, let me help you. Tax breaks do not involve the American government giving money to anyone. A tax break means to refrain from taking money away from someone.
But I do have bad news for you, too. I’m not sure if you were aware of this but….a corporation is not an actual being living a breathing and smoking nasty cigars. I feel like I’m ruining the toothfairy for a little kid here..but here goes: A corporation is actually just a legal construct. So…..when a corporation gets taxed….guess who pays the money? I hate to tell you this Kathy, but if you buy that corporations products….you pay their taxes.
Raising taxes on the corporation does not mean that we…the people…you know, the government…it does not mean that we are going to….give…the corporation less money. It does not even mean that the corporations profit margin will decrease. But Kathy….it does mean you are going to pay more for your Rice Chex.
So do you see why it is that when you say ‘why is the first good’ (giving gobs of money to corporations) and ‘why is the second bad’ (giving gobs of money to the little guy) your sentence makes no actual sense?
A tax break means to refrain from taking money away from someone.
No, a tax break is returning tax money that has already been paid — not because taxes were overpaid according to the law, but because the government is giving a free gift. If a company pays a certain amount of taxes required under the law, and the government returns that tax money to the company, that is money being given, free, to the company that they do not merit under the law. Really, you can rationalize it any way you want, Tap, but cutting a company’s (or anyone’s) taxes is giving them money. A corporation is actually just a legal construct. Okay, so then what we need to do is allow financially struggling and impoverished Americans to incorporate themselves. Then they will no longer be people, but only legal constructs, and can get some of the financial largesse that is being heaped on those other legal constructs that are operating with no human input or involvement whatsoever. But Kathy?.it does mean you are going to pay more for your Rice Chex. So what? Right now, I can’t pay for my Rice Chex at all. Give me a full-time job at decent wages, and I’ll be able to pay for Rice Chex that cost a few extra pennies.
So do you see why it is that when you say ?why is the first good? (giving gobs of money to corporations) and ?why is the second bad? (giving gobs of money to the little guy) your sentence makes no actual sense?
No, I don’t; but I do see that your arguments are childish, illogical, and are not meant to be taken seriously. So I don’t. And just to be clear, I do take Redfish’s arguments (as he has made them so far) seriously, even if I disagree with them and believe them to be wrong. He (or she) is still making a real effort to engage with someone he or she disagrees with on an adult, serious level.
Ah, the mantra of those who think that endless government aid grows on trees for free.
Huh? If you use the law to define how much ’should’ belong to the government, then don’t you also have to acknowledge that if that same government passes a law which says that the tax break is legal, then the government isn’t giving a ‘free gift’??
Kathy, a simple fact which you really need to come to terms with is that the government doesn’t create wealth, the private sector does. A certain amount of that wealth gets taken by government- but when too much of it is taken then there’s not enough growth in the economy. And please don’t give me the line that the government does create wealth by borrowing (just like we did for the Iraq War!!) Because Econ 101 also teaches us that the borrowing is still not creating wealth and runs the risk of deflating the currency too much when we overdo it. And as for the war spending, defense spending still accounts for only 20% of our budget, vs. 60% (and growing) for entitlements and the remaining 20% for discretionary spending. If you want to argue that we need to focus on cutting spending cuts on the 20% segment that actually represents the federal govt fulfilling it’s main constitutional duty, go right ahead.
For example, poorer people can gain funding for their medical problems in other ways,which may be available, if people don’t think the public system is working well enough.
Well, being in that situation myself (of being a poorer person with no insurance who cannot afford to pay for medical care out of pocket) I cannot agree with you. My income is so low that I qualify for hospital charity care — which I have — and believe me, I’m grateful for it. But it is not, in any way or by any stretch of the imagination, an efficient, sensible way to provide medical care, for a number of reasons that I won’t bore you with — but suffice it to say you can’t just go see a doctor when you need to. it’s a VERY inefficient and stigmatizing way to provide medical care, and even given that, it’s only available to people who have no financial resources at all, or next to none.
All human systems are imperfect, but given that every industrialized, Western nation has some kind of universal public health care plan but the U.S., tells me that it’s doable and not the disaster that conservatives say it would be. We can argue over the details, but to me its unquestionable that we need some form of national health coverage in which all Americans’ basic, minimal health care needs are met.
Kathy: why is it inconceivable to you that the current system of provision of healthcare to the poor could be improved rather than nationalizing all health care?
My problem is that I would rather health care brought down to a smaller level, each state providing the health care in conjunction with private companies. There is no western nation with universal health care, that has even close to the same amount population as the US. I just am not sure it would be as efficient on such a massive scale. Canada even does it by province, so why do we keep wanting to do it solely at the federal level?
If you use the law to define how much ’should’ belong to the government, then don’t you also have to acknowledge that if that same government passes a law which says that the tax break is legal, then the government isn’t giving a ‘free gift’??
Christine, again — this is a rationalization. The bottom line is that tax cuts are grants of money.
Kathy, a simple fact which you really need to come to terms with is that the government doesn’t create wealth, the private sector does.
A simple fact that YOU need to come to terms with is that the "wealth" you speak of goes to a tiny, tiny group of people, and most Americans don’t benefit from it at all. It’s creating wealth for a small minority, not for society as a whole.
Over 50% of the U.S. adult population is invested in the stock market.
There are tens of millions of small businessmen and professionals working in the U.S. economy.
These are "tiny, tiny minorities"? And taking away a little less of their money is a "gift" from the government?
Kathy, you have a very warped view of economics. I could empathize with some calls for more equitable distribution of wealth in a society if you didn’t go to such ridiculous lengths to demonize those who already pay for the VAST majority of government services. But your extremism seems to border on outright class warfare.
It doesn’t border, it’s deep into the territory.
LOL, yes, Kathy, the government is sometimes kind enough to give people the gift of keeping some of their own money.
Understanding the basics of economics isn’t rationalization, Kathy, although the term ‘rational’ would apply.
Come to think of it, I’m glad you reminded me, Kathy. I’ve got to get that thank you card in the mail to the IRS, because they gifted me with some of my income again this year! I’ll have to be sure to include it with the check that I have to send in…
What it’s not free money?
There are tens of millions of small businessmen and professionals working in the U.S. economy.
These are "tiny, tiny minorities"? And taking away a little less of their money is a "gift" from the government?They’re not the ones who get most of the wealth, Jason.
I could empathize with some calls for more equitable distribution of wealth in a society if you didn’t go to such ridiculous lengths to demonize those who already pay for the VAST majority of government services. But your extremism seems to border on outright class warfare.
It’s the middle class that pays for the vast majority of government services, as well as the vast majority of the money that goes to fight endless war — not the wealthiest tiny percent.
Understanding the basics of economics isn’t rationalization, Kathy, although the term ‘rational’ would apply.
The basics of pure, unregulated free-market capitalism is not the same thing as the basics of economics. Unfettered capitalism is one economic system, in that system’s most extreme form. It’s not the unalterable laws of physics. There’s a reason why economics is a social science, and not a hard science.
Come to think of it, I’m glad you reminded me, Kathy. I’ve got to get that thank you card in the mail to the IRS, because they gifted me with some of my income again this year! I’ll have to be sure to include it with the check that I have to send in…
Sure, Christine. I’ll be sure to do the same, when I get my $300, if my income last year was high enough to get any money at all. If I do get the $300, I can choose between paying a third of my rent, or making one car payment. I will be beside myself with gratitude to Pres. Bush for making such a huge impact on my financial struggle.
So wait, Kathy. Seriously. What you are saying is that no one has the right, be they an individual or a corp., to the products of their own labor, right? The government owns it, and what they allow you to keep is a gift. And if you take it from there, your point is that the government is doing a poor job of distributing its’ money to all of us, resulting in an inequitable situation for all individuals. Do I understand you correctly now?
Kathy: newsflash- you do get the $300, whether or not you paid any tax at all. I, on the other hand, will not, because our income exceeds the upper limit. I’m not complaining about it, because that’s the way a stimulus works- giving some cash to people who otherwise wouldn’t have it to spend. But isn’t it a bit ridiculous for you to complain about getting a ‘rebate’ of something you never paid in the first place, to me, who paid into the pot and doesn’t get anything back? (Again, I’m not complaining that you’re getting it or that I’m not- just the absurdity of your attitude about it; amazing that the thought of the POTUS using other people’s earnings to help you pay your bills should even enter into your mind!)
Define middle class and "wealthiest tiny percent". Since the top 5% of wage earners pay over 50% of our income taxes, I’m guessing you either are interested in taxing wealth instead of income, or that you are unaware of the distribution of tax burden, or that by tiny you mean some sliver that has become infinitessimally small (with all the rest being lumped with the middle class) in order to make your point actually true
Kathy: newsflash- you do get the $300, whether or not you paid any tax at all.
As long as you earned $3,000 or more. I just checked. And I made about $15,000 last year. So yes, I will get the $300. Whoop-de-doo.
But isn’t it a bit ridiculous for you to complain about getting a ‘rebate’ of something you never paid in the first place, to me, who paid into the pot and doesn’t get anything back?
I’m not complaining about getting $300 back; I’m just not under any illusions that it will make any meaningful difference to me financially. And I don’t see any reason why I should feel grateful to Pres. Bush or Congress for it when the money that could make a real difference to me and millions of other Americans struggling to survive financially is being spent on war and enriching people who already have more money than they would know what to do with in 10 lifetimes.
I’m not complaining that you’re getting it or that I’m not- just the absurdity of your attitude about it; amazing that the thought of the POTUS using other people’s earnings to help you pay your bills should even enter into your mind!
If you don’t like that idea, Christine, perhaps you should support a presidential candidate who will put your earnings into creating jobs that pay a living wage, and make it financially possible for people without jobs or money to get the skills training and/or professional training they need to qualify for those jobs. I assume you would agree that the worth and dignity of human lives should not hinge on income. If the only help forthcoming for millions of Americans who cannot find jobs or who are clinging to jobs that barely enough to keep body and soul together is help they can’t qualify for because they don’t pay taxes, or because they earn less than a certain income cutoff, then in my view the message sent to those Americans is that they don’t matter. I don’t see how one can draw any other conclusion.
Define middle class and "wealthiest tiny percent". Since the top 5% of wage earners pay over 50% of our income taxes, I’m guessing you either are interested in taxing wealth instead of income, or that you are unaware of the distribution of tax burden, or that by tiny you mean some sliver that has become infinitessimally small (with all the rest being lumped with the middle class) in order to make your point actually true
Here is an interview in The Multinational Monitor with Edward Wolff, an economics professor at NYU, and author of a recent book on wealth and income inequality in the U.S.
Wolff favors a tax on wealth, and he also supports non-tax ways of addressing income inequality, such as a broader and sturdier safety net. I agree with him. I think that tax breaks to "stimulate the economy" do little or nothing to help low-wage earners and no-wage earners. And I think that tax rebates are a very unfair and inequitable and insufficient way to address widespread financial hardship IF they are the only method used to address financial hardship, because they totally leave unemployed and underemployed Americans out in the cold. A combination of tax breaks, rebates, and a greatly strengthened social safety net would be much more fair and equitable.
Kathy, That Wolff guy sounds like a commie.
The problem here is jealousy of those that have succeeded in life.
We all have the freedom to try… some make very poor choices in life. Some don’t.
Government shouldn’t be in the job of penalyzing the successful at the benefit of the unsuccessful. You and Wolff are suggesting bringing everyone back to a level playing field. What’s the incentive then to try to succeed.
You describe a Utopian world. That’s called Fanatsy Land. Good luck with that.