Edwards' gift to the campaign
Yesterday, John Edwards ended his campaign as he began it, in New Orleans talking about poverty and injustice. It was a sad day for me personally, to see a candidate I volunteered for lose. It was still a useful few months for me, to believe and then to lose that belief. I saw something of the American political process while volunteering. It is an odd beat whose teeny base of retail politicking (rallies, speeches, etc.) supports the giant head of the media freak show. Positive feedback loops rule the media freak show: the media declares a candidate is viable because s/he has some support, and that declaration makes the candidate more viable. Money and fame and power beget more of the same. I don’t mean to be cynical: ideas do matter, in the sense that candidates with compelling themes and rhetoric do better than other candidates without these. But policy differences, the differences in the actions candidates would take when in office, matter relatively little.
Most of the media commentary following Edwards’ withdrawal focused on why he lost the race. Sometimes commentators divined what his departure would do Obama and Clinton’s poll numbers. Missing was a thoughtful reflection on how Edwards presence in the race affected the policy positions of the other two major Democratic candidates. Edwards pushed early for universal health care coverage, and Clinton followed his lead. Edwards’ environmental plan called for drastic government action to ease American dependence on foreign oil was incorporated into Obama and Clinton’s plans. Most important, Edwards discussion of poverty made the others start to address that issue as well. Edwards’ presence took two moderate candidates and made them pledge to support some progressive ideals. It remains to be seen whether they would stick to those pledges if elected, but at least we can hold them to their word. This influence on actual policy issues was Edwards’ real gift to the campaign.
Most of the media commentary following Edwards’ withdrawal focused on why he lost the race. Sometimes commentators divined what his departure would do Obama and Clinton’s poll numbers. Missing was a thoughtful reflection on how Edwards presence in the race affected the policy positions of the other two major Democratic candidates. Edwards pushed early for universal health care coverage, and Clinton followed his lead. Edwards’ environmental plan called for drastic government action to ease American dependence on foreign oil was incorporated into Obama and Clinton’s plans. Most important, Edwards discussion of poverty made the others start to address that issue as well. Edwards’ presence took two moderate candidates and made them pledge to support some progressive ideals. It remains to be seen whether they would stick to those pledges if elected, but at least we can hold them to their word. This influence on actual policy issues was Edwards’ real gift to the campaign.
