So I'm here in beautiful Columbia South Carolina at the annual College Democrats of America (CDA) Convention. Yes, this is the first I've written about it, but yesterday sucked (for me at least) so there wasn't much to talk about. The CDA is an organization nested within the Democratic National Committee that supports and organizes local chapters to support and promote Democratic candidates in local, state, and national races.
Today was really quite something. From rumors of RNC trackers to using the popcorn machine to make freshly popped popcorn it was a ride. The highlight of the day was actually at the end. John Edwards, native son of South Carolina gave the keynote speech of the day and he blew me away. I've never seen him speak in person before and he honestly gets shafted by the MSM while they fawn over Obama or talk about how Hillary can't win. He's the third wheel of the Democratic presidential nomination and really doesn't get the credit he deserves. Whether he wins or loses John Edwards is probably the most important candidate in the race in my mind.
Why? you might ask. He's not a woman. He's not black. In fact, he's a WASP. The reason is really simple actually: he's an old school populist liberal. He's the trend setter and the issue spotter in the field. He's the man with the vision and the plan that the other campaigns sort of rush to catch up with and overshadow. He was the first one to come up with a credible system for universal healthcare coverage. He's also got the most realistic plan apparently. Not that these things matter all that much, because no one reads 20 page position papers, hell even I don't usually. But he's got it.
Back to the populism. Granted, a chunk of it is message, but the message is generally crafted based on ideas and views the candidate holds to a greater or lesser extent. I'm not sure what it was exactly. He didn't bound onto the stage like Obama giving rushed handshakes to a few people and high fiving the rest as he plowed through the ropelines. He walked slowly and deliberately taking time to shake hands, squeeze hands, take pictures, and look at people. We hear a lot about how he's fake and it's a sham, but looking at that man as he walked up to the stage made me wonder if he wasn't really quite genuine.
He took the stage and was absolutely electrifying. He didn't have some high-minded idealistic speech about how we need consensus or hope. No. He cut the bullshit and talked like a man with a master plan. Don't get me wrong, the man is sharp, he just doesn't talk in vague language. He's concrete. He looked tired and his voice croaked a few times from strain or exhaustion, but his eyes blazed with an intensity and fire that I have seen in few others. His main focus was economic issues and he spoke eloquently and passionately about economic inequality, universal healthcare and the programs he had in mind to address these things. He talked about a genuine social safety net and human capital building infrastructure including: reduced cost or free college tuition for all qualified students (regardless of income); creating 1 million transition jobs to help young people get on their feet, gain experience and look for something else; expanding section 8 housing; and humanitarian assistance both at home and abroad. It was electrifying. He didn't have any moment in which the crowd overshot him like Obama often gets, but there were a lot of nodding heads around me as he spoke of the world in economic terms that hit close to home. He didn't mention culture issues, he didn't talk about abortion or gay marriage. He talked bread and butter and I respect him for that. He took stands on tricky issues and let his opinions be heard and heard loud and clear. There's little ambiguity in what he wants.
To be honest before today I had never thought of him in any serious way. I knew he was a candidate. I knew he was sort of popular. But I didn't really like him. I watched him in 2004 and was turned off by some of his somewhat conservative social positions. Since then I've come to realize that voting on culture issues is really a bad investment because we wind up electing the same plutocrats who only advance the agenda of the wealthy and powerful. Sure candidate X may be anti-death penalty, but if he's going to enact an economic policy that will destroy the livelihoods of millions he's probably going to push more people into crime and jails.
As he left the stage he took about twenty minutes to mingle with the crowd. He took pictures, shook hands, spoke brief words. He looked exhausted, but he never rushed. Even with his staff tugging at his sleeve urging him to hurry, he took his time and went out of his way to make sure he connected with everyone he could. Getting back to the title of the post and it's original intention. Today I saw a man much deeper than a $400 haircut (which flaps in the breeze just fabulously by the way), I saw the man who in my opinion at least is the most important candidate of the 2008 election cycle. Like I said in the beginning, he's the opinion leader. When he focuses on an issue, the others follow. Even if he doesn't win, which it looks like he won't, he's forcing the other candidates to really address tough issues that the Democratic party has run from for the last twenty years. He's pushing the party back to its base as the party of, yes, liberals. No more of this bullshit conservative economics with liberal social values. It's all about the economy stupid!
If the Democratic party wants to win in the future, it must distinguish itself from the Republicans by showing that it is unafraid of taking on large corporations, the wealthy and the powerful and push for the economic security and wellbeing of the vast majority of Americans. Centrist Democrats are wrong about triangulation. It's a fucking disaster. Once you strip the economics out of politics you are left with hot button culture issues and the ones who will turn out to vote on them will be whoever is most indignant and pissed off which usually happens to be blue-collar religious conservatives who have become the great butt of the culture industry's jokes. They lash out at the "liberal elite" that shadowy slinky crowd who somehow manage to rule the world while consistently losing elections. When your economic platforms are that similar the choice is simple: vote for the bastards who seem to be the more moral people rather than the bastards who like all sorts of strange things you couldn't possibly imagine doing.
Today was really quite something. From rumors of RNC trackers to using the popcorn machine to make freshly popped popcorn it was a ride. The highlight of the day was actually at the end. John Edwards, native son of South Carolina gave the keynote speech of the day and he blew me away. I've never seen him speak in person before and he honestly gets shafted by the MSM while they fawn over Obama or talk about how Hillary can't win. He's the third wheel of the Democratic presidential nomination and really doesn't get the credit he deserves. Whether he wins or loses John Edwards is probably the most important candidate in the race in my mind.
Why? you might ask. He's not a woman. He's not black. In fact, he's a WASP. The reason is really simple actually: he's an old school populist liberal. He's the trend setter and the issue spotter in the field. He's the man with the vision and the plan that the other campaigns sort of rush to catch up with and overshadow. He was the first one to come up with a credible system for universal healthcare coverage. He's also got the most realistic plan apparently. Not that these things matter all that much, because no one reads 20 page position papers, hell even I don't usually. But he's got it.
Back to the populism. Granted, a chunk of it is message, but the message is generally crafted based on ideas and views the candidate holds to a greater or lesser extent. I'm not sure what it was exactly. He didn't bound onto the stage like Obama giving rushed handshakes to a few people and high fiving the rest as he plowed through the ropelines. He walked slowly and deliberately taking time to shake hands, squeeze hands, take pictures, and look at people. We hear a lot about how he's fake and it's a sham, but looking at that man as he walked up to the stage made me wonder if he wasn't really quite genuine.
He took the stage and was absolutely electrifying. He didn't have some high-minded idealistic speech about how we need consensus or hope. No. He cut the bullshit and talked like a man with a master plan. Don't get me wrong, the man is sharp, he just doesn't talk in vague language. He's concrete. He looked tired and his voice croaked a few times from strain or exhaustion, but his eyes blazed with an intensity and fire that I have seen in few others. His main focus was economic issues and he spoke eloquently and passionately about economic inequality, universal healthcare and the programs he had in mind to address these things. He talked about a genuine social safety net and human capital building infrastructure including: reduced cost or free college tuition for all qualified students (regardless of income); creating 1 million transition jobs to help young people get on their feet, gain experience and look for something else; expanding section 8 housing; and humanitarian assistance both at home and abroad. It was electrifying. He didn't have any moment in which the crowd overshot him like Obama often gets, but there were a lot of nodding heads around me as he spoke of the world in economic terms that hit close to home. He didn't mention culture issues, he didn't talk about abortion or gay marriage. He talked bread and butter and I respect him for that. He took stands on tricky issues and let his opinions be heard and heard loud and clear. There's little ambiguity in what he wants.
To be honest before today I had never thought of him in any serious way. I knew he was a candidate. I knew he was sort of popular. But I didn't really like him. I watched him in 2004 and was turned off by some of his somewhat conservative social positions. Since then I've come to realize that voting on culture issues is really a bad investment because we wind up electing the same plutocrats who only advance the agenda of the wealthy and powerful. Sure candidate X may be anti-death penalty, but if he's going to enact an economic policy that will destroy the livelihoods of millions he's probably going to push more people into crime and jails.
As he left the stage he took about twenty minutes to mingle with the crowd. He took pictures, shook hands, spoke brief words. He looked exhausted, but he never rushed. Even with his staff tugging at his sleeve urging him to hurry, he took his time and went out of his way to make sure he connected with everyone he could. Getting back to the title of the post and it's original intention. Today I saw a man much deeper than a $400 haircut (which flaps in the breeze just fabulously by the way), I saw the man who in my opinion at least is the most important candidate of the 2008 election cycle. Like I said in the beginning, he's the opinion leader. When he focuses on an issue, the others follow. Even if he doesn't win, which it looks like he won't, he's forcing the other candidates to really address tough issues that the Democratic party has run from for the last twenty years. He's pushing the party back to its base as the party of, yes, liberals. No more of this bullshit conservative economics with liberal social values. It's all about the economy stupid!
If the Democratic party wants to win in the future, it must distinguish itself from the Republicans by showing that it is unafraid of taking on large corporations, the wealthy and the powerful and push for the economic security and wellbeing of the vast majority of Americans. Centrist Democrats are wrong about triangulation. It's a fucking disaster. Once you strip the economics out of politics you are left with hot button culture issues and the ones who will turn out to vote on them will be whoever is most indignant and pissed off which usually happens to be blue-collar religious conservatives who have become the great butt of the culture industry's jokes. They lash out at the "liberal elite" that shadowy slinky crowd who somehow manage to rule the world while consistently losing elections. When your economic platforms are that similar the choice is simple: vote for the bastards who seem to be the more moral people rather than the bastards who like all sorts of strange things you couldn't possibly imagine doing.
I disagree, of course, with most of the changes that Edwards has proposed (with the exception of the free college tuition, which I would restrict to low-income students with high ACT scores.)
However, I agree with you that the most important factors in picking potential executives and representatives in the government must be economics.
It is ridiculous for political candidates to speak on moral issues because those candidates, by their very ambition, are likely to be immoral themselves and therefore reek of hypocrisy. More importantly, they are moving into the realm of the government that which belongs instead in the pulpit.
I read an excellent article on Mrs. Edwards in the Chicago Sun-Times yesterday. Everyone knows that they're going to die someday, but it takes a special kind of bravery to deal with the kind of specificity that a terminal illness provides. That she's working so hard for her husband shows a depth of character and virtue that is uncommon, and I wish her the best of luck.
Tom
I just love the fact that you were able to take time out of your busy post to take a shot at corporations...I was worried for a while there you weren't going to be able to get it in.
Also, you would you happen to have a link as to his positions and plans. Specifically, his plans for paying for this "genuine social safety net." I am interested in how he plans to fund it all.
I'm one of the crazy bastards who actually thinks he has a very good chance at winning, because of a mix of fatigue surrounding Hillary and Obama due to the long cycle and Edwards strength in Iowa. He could win the Iowa and SC primary and then run the table. I'm not saying I think an Edwards nomination is more likely than not, but I do think its more likely than the "experts" say.
He needs to stop talking about fashion and anything else that makes him look like a sissy. People want to vote for someone who is tough and in a way "manly." Hillary is "manly" in the necessary way, and Edwards isn't when he starts talking about her jacket or his haircut. He is when he taps in to his special breed of indignant populism.
Edwards is unfortunately the closest thing to populist that we've got at this stage of the game. Unfortunately, he is not much of one...he screams of wealth and privilige. If you don't believe me:
http://www.moshplant.com/prob/prob01/long.html
http://www.hueylong.com/
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAlongH.htm
Unfortunately, that tradition seems to have died out here in LA and we get stuck with the likes of Vitter, Melancon, Blankstare, Willy "dollar bil" Jefferson, Morial, and Nagin.
But Hanno, your prescription for the Democrats is exactly what they're embracing! Populism is on the rebound, and while Clintonite centrism (free trade, deficit reduction) have largely been vindicated from economic data, the feeling of economic insecurity is at an all time. Many Democrats won in 2006 on some kind of protectionism - Schumer is pushing China to float the Yuan, and we've already raised the minimum wage. In fact, one of the reasons that Clinton gets flack from the grassroots, aside from the Iraq War, is that her record isn't populist enough.
I'm skeptical about this notion that economic populism is a real issue for '08. To me, it still looks like '08 will be about 3 things: Iraq, Getting out of Iraq and Getting the Hell out of Iraq with minimal mess. Iraq has sucked up so much political oxygen there's little left for economic populism.
I agree with tet that the number one factor in choosing a candidate should be economic policy, but it rarely is. There's a new book called The Political Brain which explains how emotion rules most people's political decision-making. (And surely some emotion is on display here: "He took the stage and was absolutely electrifying." "He cut the bullshit and talked like a man with a master plan.", etc. But, having made my point, I'm sure that Hanno has non-emotional reasons for liking Edwards.) Emotion politics is all about manipulating people's biases and prejudices. So for every Repulican appeal to the xenophobes in this country who want to kick out all the Hispanics, we have an economic populist who's gonna "stop" China from providing us with cheap labor and cheap goods. In politics, emotions rule.
I still think Hillary is going to win in '08. Not my personal fave, but she's a hell of a lot better than Giuliani. Either way, I think I'm starting to think more like tet (at least what I think tet thinks). Who gives a shit who's president in 2010? If you're watching politics, you're missing the real show. (Which is enjoyably stated in this TED talk:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/80
) We are just at the beginning of the social revolution that is being powered by technology. The consequences of which are far more important than whoever happens to be President for the next four years (or eight, or twelve, or whatever). Before the end of the term of the next President, a supercomputer will be built that will exceed the highest guess of the computational power of the brain. (Already, the world's fastest computer has surpassed what is considered the "lower bound" of human computation). This suggests that it will be technology-- not politics-- that is going to drive social and economic change in the decades to come.
John Edwards wants to lower the cost of education? More free taxpayer money is nice, but Human Capital Contracts
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-462es.html
would be more efficient and would encourage students to be wiser in choosing their field of study.
Jon Edwards wants to reduce poverty? One laptop per Child
http://laptop.org/
has more potential to reduce world poverty through the democratization of education than anything he will propose.
Another John, John Kennedy famously proclaimed that an American would be on the moon within a decade. During a John Edwards administration, we would likely see a different first-- the first person to go to space in a privately built rocket.
Sure, politicians aren't going to become unimportant anytime soon, but they may soon become irrelevant.I've got my popcorn ready; it's going to be a great show.
Allan
"Clintonite centrism (free trade, deficit reduction) have largely been vindicated from economic data"
I beg to differ. Real wages adjusted for inflation have been pretty flat since about 1976. They've gone up a dollar or two, but most workers are not seeing their wages rise in terms of purchasing power. While aggregate economic growth is super duper, most people don't feel economic growth unless it shows up in THEIR paychecks.
Economic populism (at least the sort I support) doesn't necessarily involve protectionism at all. Mostly it's a social safety net to help people get back on their feet after being slapped around by global market forces.
Excellent post, Allan.
One minor correction:
The first human went into space in a privately built rocket just before the end of W's first term in 2004--twice.
Now, he duplicated Alan Shepard rather than John Glenn, but he did do it.
Oh, and, Alan, stay tuned for Singularity #3--I wrote it yesterday morning, but enjoyed Hanno's article and the discussion so much, I delayed it by a day, so as to not detract.
Tom
Hanno, wages have largely remained stagnant because of supply-side competition. The more (inevitably) globalized we become, the more competition we'll face on the lower-value end of labor. At the same time, Clintonite centrism has been vindicated in many other ways. Absolute wealth, in the form of lower prices and diversity of goods, along with wage growth, has on the net whole increased significantly for all classes. So while wage growth might be stagnant, other factors compensate it to ensure that everyone has benefitted. Nobody, on average, has become poorer, but because the benefits of globalization have accrued disproportionately to the higher skilled workers in our economy, inequality rises. Hence, people are in fact getting richer, but many poor people, relative to their richer counterparts, feel poorer. This, and the problems of healthcare (an issue independent of Clintonite centrism) and a soon to be insolvent social security regime, are what amplify the feelings of economic insecurity.
There are a number of analysts, including Vox Day, (whose formal college training, I believe, is in economics) believe that the "main indicators" have been somewhat misleading for some time and that "real wages" peaked in 1972.
You'd have to ask him about the details, however.
Tom
Good points Dr X. As I fully admit, in aggregate, we are richer. But like you say, it's been highly skewed growth and it's the people who are left behind (which happens to be a decent majority of people) who are attracted by economic populism.
Tom, good call. I actually get a lot of my information from the Economic Policy Institute which I know has a slight labor bias, but is by no means disreputable.