Post by blueneck on Nov 26, 2007 20:38:13 GMT -6
By Thomas B Edsall
Is John Edwards' presidential campaign the test of progressive populism that Democratic activists have long awaited?
More than any other Democratic candidate, Edwards has adopted populist rhetoric, attacking those "special interests that have seized control over Washington." Edwards promises an all-out assault on a "tax code [that] favors wealth over work," on media ownership "dominated by a few powerful corporate interests," and on an economic system in which "40 percent of the income growth in the 1980s and 1990s went the top one percent.'
Edwards, in the words of blogger-columnist David Sirota, "is offering a courageous, full-throated indictment of Big Money.... Edwards says that 'powerful interests, particularly corporate interests, have literally taken over this government.' And Edwards hasn't just been talking about it - he has made a crusade against this, the issue of our day, the centerpiece of his campaign. He has, in short, made it the very reason he is running."
Will the success or failure of the Edwards campaign thus serve to answer the ideological and strategic debate between Democratic centrists and their more liberal critics - a debate that has dominated the Democratic Party since the 1960s?
The Huffington Post sought comment on this question from a number of political writers, activists and scholars, including Sirota; Al From, CEO of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC); Robert L. Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future; Larry Bartels; Lawrence Mishel, President of the Economic Policy Institute (EPI); Time's Joe Klein; Paul Krugman of the New York Times; Chris Bowers of Open Left; Harold Meyerson, executive editor, American Prospect; John B. Judis, senior editor, the New Republic; Kevin Drum, contributing writer, Washington Monthly, and blogger Political Animal; Ruy Teixeira, fellow, Center for American Progress (CAP) and The Century Foundation; Michael Kazin, professor of history, Georgetown University; Andy Stern, President, Service Employees International Union (SEIU); and Matthew Yglesias, Atlantic.com.
The same three overlapping questions were put to each participant:
-- "Is the Edwards campaign a legitimate test for those who argue that the party should become more aggressive, more populist, willing to take on corporate interests, and willing to be an explicit advocate for the less powerful?
-- "If the Edwards campaign is a legitimate test, shouldn't he sweep the Democratic nomination fight since Democratic voters would be a core populist constituency?
-- "If the Edwards campaign is not a legitimate test, why not? His positions and rhetoric would appear to fit the bill."
* * *
What follows are participants' responses, in some cases slightly edited for punctuation and length.
DAVID SIROTA, POLITICAL JOURNALIST, BLOGGER, ACTIVIST:
The answer to your question is yes and no. Yes, Edwards' campaign is a legitimate test of the populist economic message .... if Edwards wins, it will be because of his populist economic message - and that message has helped him stay competitive in the face of two celebrity candidates, and in the face of being outspent. If Edwards loses, I would say it has nothing to do with his message, and everything to do with the fact that celebrity and money still very much dominate politics....[T]he ideology already has passed the test. The fact that Edwards is competitive when he faces such steep odds shows just how far populism can take a candidate. Imagine if it was a level playing field for him - imagine if he was doing what he's doing, and not being outspent, and there weren't two media celebrities in the race.
* * *
Its fairly long - read the rest here www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/26/huffpost-forum-the-quest_n_74104.html
Is John Edwards' presidential campaign the test of progressive populism that Democratic activists have long awaited?
More than any other Democratic candidate, Edwards has adopted populist rhetoric, attacking those "special interests that have seized control over Washington." Edwards promises an all-out assault on a "tax code [that] favors wealth over work," on media ownership "dominated by a few powerful corporate interests," and on an economic system in which "40 percent of the income growth in the 1980s and 1990s went the top one percent.'
Edwards, in the words of blogger-columnist David Sirota, "is offering a courageous, full-throated indictment of Big Money.... Edwards says that 'powerful interests, particularly corporate interests, have literally taken over this government.' And Edwards hasn't just been talking about it - he has made a crusade against this, the issue of our day, the centerpiece of his campaign. He has, in short, made it the very reason he is running."
Will the success or failure of the Edwards campaign thus serve to answer the ideological and strategic debate between Democratic centrists and their more liberal critics - a debate that has dominated the Democratic Party since the 1960s?
The Huffington Post sought comment on this question from a number of political writers, activists and scholars, including Sirota; Al From, CEO of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC); Robert L. Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future; Larry Bartels; Lawrence Mishel, President of the Economic Policy Institute (EPI); Time's Joe Klein; Paul Krugman of the New York Times; Chris Bowers of Open Left; Harold Meyerson, executive editor, American Prospect; John B. Judis, senior editor, the New Republic; Kevin Drum, contributing writer, Washington Monthly, and blogger Political Animal; Ruy Teixeira, fellow, Center for American Progress (CAP) and The Century Foundation; Michael Kazin, professor of history, Georgetown University; Andy Stern, President, Service Employees International Union (SEIU); and Matthew Yglesias, Atlantic.com.
The same three overlapping questions were put to each participant:
-- "Is the Edwards campaign a legitimate test for those who argue that the party should become more aggressive, more populist, willing to take on corporate interests, and willing to be an explicit advocate for the less powerful?
-- "If the Edwards campaign is a legitimate test, shouldn't he sweep the Democratic nomination fight since Democratic voters would be a core populist constituency?
-- "If the Edwards campaign is not a legitimate test, why not? His positions and rhetoric would appear to fit the bill."
* * *
What follows are participants' responses, in some cases slightly edited for punctuation and length.
DAVID SIROTA, POLITICAL JOURNALIST, BLOGGER, ACTIVIST:
The answer to your question is yes and no. Yes, Edwards' campaign is a legitimate test of the populist economic message .... if Edwards wins, it will be because of his populist economic message - and that message has helped him stay competitive in the face of two celebrity candidates, and in the face of being outspent. If Edwards loses, I would say it has nothing to do with his message, and everything to do with the fact that celebrity and money still very much dominate politics....[T]he ideology already has passed the test. The fact that Edwards is competitive when he faces such steep odds shows just how far populism can take a candidate. Imagine if it was a level playing field for him - imagine if he was doing what he's doing, and not being outspent, and there weren't two media celebrities in the race.
* * *
Its fairly long - read the rest here www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/26/huffpost-forum-the-quest_n_74104.html