Politics of Poverty
The Decembrist has a very thoughtful post on the differences between the Shrum-inspired populism of Kerry and Gore versus that of John Edwards. Arguing that Edwards has had a far greater impact on the Democratic party than has Dean, Mark Schmidt notes that while it's not surprising that Republicans don't talk about what we should be doing for the poor in this country, well, neither do most Dems either. Most candidates, Kerry included, like to talk about the "people vs. the powerful," but they're talking about the elites vs. the middle class and the latter hasn't done too badly in recent years. They talk about prescription drugs and child tax cuts; in other words, what they can do for people with a mortgage and a Volvo. Heaven forbid they should talk about food stamps or the huge population of the underclass that persists in this country. Edwards has a different take. He's talking about a moral duty that we have to help.
"Edwards is the first politician who, when he talks to a room full of middle-class people, doesn't necessarily seem to be promising something to them. Sure, he's a little vague about just where the line is between the 'Two Americas' -- it's 'the rich and powerful' and 'everyone else.' But when he gets specific, when he starts talking about the ten-year-old girl who goes to sleep hoping that it isn't as cold tomorrow as today because she doesn't have warm enough clothes -- it's got to be apparent to any audience that he's not talking about what he's going to do for them. He's making a moral claim about what our country owes to those who have the least, not promising something to everyone who 'works hard and plays by the rules.' And, shocking as it is, that's a big deal. And it matters that it comes from a candidate who is generally perceived as a moderate -- if only because he's a southerner -- rather than the leftmost candidate in the race. Although I think that's a very subtle distinction, and I agree with every word of Joel Rogers' argument in The Nation, 'Progressives Should Vote For Edwards'.
"It also, surprisingly, permits a kind of optimism. The Shrum populism is just a complaint, it doesn't lead to a structural revamping of the economy that would really change the circumstances that the rich and powerful are rich and powerful. Edwards' vision, on the other hand, suggests something that it is within our power to change. We can do something for that ten-year-old girl, we can generate what the folks at the Economic Policy Instittute call 'broadly shared prosperity.'"
The fact that most polls in the primary states indicate that Edwards' optimistic call to our better nature, vague as it is to me, is being received enthusiastically may mean that the Democratic party is once again finding its voice and its way.
And warm clothes isn't really too big a problem in this country, thanks to Walmart and third world sweat shops, but never mind.
I'm still leaning towards Kerry, he's the strongest candidate and has a grasp of the complex dangers we face I think Edwards lacks (see point about warm clothes in preceding paragraph). But I hope Kerry's listening to the competition.
Meanwhile Orcinus reminds us that terrorism begins at home.
The document dump the White House pulled the night before a three-day weekend shouldn't end this story, but Billmon fears the first hints of media exhaustion are setting in. It shouldn't.
"Now I suppose it's possible such behavior did not constitute being AWOL, since it appears that in the Texas Air National Guard in the year 1972, the definition of the term was purely metaphysical -- at least as far as Bush family members were concerned. The condition may have existed, but only in the realm of abstract thought.
"Still, it's clear why the Bushies have tried so hard for so long to keep these details out of the public eye. The degree of favoritism and cronyism that made Lt. Shrub's military 'career' possible appears to have far exceeded even the generous standards of the time for the sons of the wealthy and powerful. Like John Fogarty said, 'some folks are born made to wave the flag.'"
Which raises another question. After having spent a fortune training Lt. Bush to fly a fighter jet, he just happens to miss a physical and loses flight status. Why is there no reprimand of any kind in the released documents? They just don't waste money like that and then let it go -- to Harvard or anywhere else. But he's a Bush and Texas is a cozy place for kids like him.
And who pays for this crap?
How conservatives see the world.
Apropos of nothing, but an ad* found recently on the Vega Cura's blogspot page:
BUSH 2004 TSHIRTS & MORE
Show support for President Bush. W 2004 Shirts, Merchandise & more
*****
Maybe now Brian Cashman will get the respect he deserves. Now how long will it take the Yankees to convince Jeter to move to second and be part of the best double play team in the game?
And Sox fans, stop whining. You got Schilling.
Still it's sweet to watch Red Sox Nation writhe in self-righteous fury.
Sad day for cycling. Marco made the Tour more fun to watch as Armstrong methodically crushed the competition.
* In the original posting, two ads were mentioned, but the link for one of them is now broken.
"Edwards is the first politician who, when he talks to a room full of middle-class people, doesn't necessarily seem to be promising something to them. Sure, he's a little vague about just where the line is between the 'Two Americas' -- it's 'the rich and powerful' and 'everyone else.' But when he gets specific, when he starts talking about the ten-year-old girl who goes to sleep hoping that it isn't as cold tomorrow as today because she doesn't have warm enough clothes -- it's got to be apparent to any audience that he's not talking about what he's going to do for them. He's making a moral claim about what our country owes to those who have the least, not promising something to everyone who 'works hard and plays by the rules.' And, shocking as it is, that's a big deal. And it matters that it comes from a candidate who is generally perceived as a moderate -- if only because he's a southerner -- rather than the leftmost candidate in the race. Although I think that's a very subtle distinction, and I agree with every word of Joel Rogers' argument in The Nation, 'Progressives Should Vote For Edwards'.
"It also, surprisingly, permits a kind of optimism. The Shrum populism is just a complaint, it doesn't lead to a structural revamping of the economy that would really change the circumstances that the rich and powerful are rich and powerful. Edwards' vision, on the other hand, suggests something that it is within our power to change. We can do something for that ten-year-old girl, we can generate what the folks at the Economic Policy Instittute call 'broadly shared prosperity.'"
The fact that most polls in the primary states indicate that Edwards' optimistic call to our better nature, vague as it is to me, is being received enthusiastically may mean that the Democratic party is once again finding its voice and its way.
And warm clothes isn't really too big a problem in this country, thanks to Walmart and third world sweat shops, but never mind.
I'm still leaning towards Kerry, he's the strongest candidate and has a grasp of the complex dangers we face I think Edwards lacks (see point about warm clothes in preceding paragraph). But I hope Kerry's listening to the competition.
Meanwhile Orcinus reminds us that terrorism begins at home.
The document dump the White House pulled the night before a three-day weekend shouldn't end this story, but Billmon fears the first hints of media exhaustion are setting in. It shouldn't.
"Now I suppose it's possible such behavior did not constitute being AWOL, since it appears that in the Texas Air National Guard in the year 1972, the definition of the term was purely metaphysical -- at least as far as Bush family members were concerned. The condition may have existed, but only in the realm of abstract thought.
"Still, it's clear why the Bushies have tried so hard for so long to keep these details out of the public eye. The degree of favoritism and cronyism that made Lt. Shrub's military 'career' possible appears to have far exceeded even the generous standards of the time for the sons of the wealthy and powerful. Like John Fogarty said, 'some folks are born made to wave the flag.'"
Which raises another question. After having spent a fortune training Lt. Bush to fly a fighter jet, he just happens to miss a physical and loses flight status. Why is there no reprimand of any kind in the released documents? They just don't waste money like that and then let it go -- to Harvard or anywhere else. But he's a Bush and Texas is a cozy place for kids like him.
And who pays for this crap?
How conservatives see the world.
Apropos of nothing, but an ad* found recently on the Vega Cura's blogspot page:
BUSH 2004 TSHIRTS & MORE
Show support for President Bush. W 2004 Shirts, Merchandise & more
*****
Maybe now Brian Cashman will get the respect he deserves. Now how long will it take the Yankees to convince Jeter to move to second and be part of the best double play team in the game?
And Sox fans, stop whining. You got Schilling.
Still it's sweet to watch Red Sox Nation writhe in self-righteous fury.
Sad day for cycling. Marco made the Tour more fun to watch as Armstrong methodically crushed the competition.
* In the original posting, two ads were mentioned, but the link for one of them is now broken.
posted by John at 8:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home