The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Edwards’ questionable call

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Jack Garigliano:

Tuition raise continues daunting trend (October 25, 2007)
Republicans overreact to UW e-mail (October 11, 2007)
Music downloads still safe (September 28, 2007)
College Dems do it dirty, focus on 'ass'inine issues (September 13, 2007)
Tibetan flag flap should blow over (May 2, 2007)

by Jack Garigliano

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

John Edwards presses on in his attempt to win the presidential nomination. Mr. Edwards and his wife Elizabeth announced their decision last Thursday to sustain the presidential campaign despite Mrs. Edwards' incurable resurgence of cancer. Mrs. Edwards, in defiance of her illness, urged her husband to continue his run.

John Edwards, formerly a senator from North Carolina, campaigned in 2004 as John Kerry's running mate in the Democratic Party's unsuccessful bid for presidency. Elizabeth Edwards was originally diagnosed with breast cancer shortly after the 2004 campaign. Although the cancer subsided, X-rays recently revealed its spread into her rib and hip bones. Mrs. Edwards currently enjoys an otherwise healthy condition and plans to aid her husband on the campaign trail, though it is uncertain how the stress will affect the cancer's progress.

The Edwards' decision to remain in the running has sparked a fascinating debate on appropriate action in the face of mortality. Some have admired the couple for their perseverance and optimism, for refusing to abandon their goals and wallow in a pit of despair. Others have called the couple coldly ambitious for choosing to campaign with time that could be better spent with each other and their two children, ages eight and six.

Mrs. Edwards and her husband have offered several reasons why they continue their grueling campaign. She emphasized, according to the transcript from a recent interview on "60 Minutes," her desire "to live as full and normal a life as [she] can" and "deny cancer any control." The couple also stressed that, in the words of Mr. Edwards, they are doing a "service" and fulfilling their "responsibility to this country." Mrs. Edwards noted, "that would be my legacy … that I'd taken out [Mr. Edwards] from the possibility of giving a great service. I don't want that to be my legacy."

The Edwardses express a philosophy that I personally do not embrace on every level. Much of what they say I can agree with; I doubt most people would deny that living a "full and normal life" by pursuing one's goals and not falling prey to despair is a healthy outlook on life. And although Mr. Edwards' statement that they are performing a "service" to the country sounds slightly like a sugarcoated attempt at attracting voters, I can give it the benefit of the doubt. If they truly believe the country will be better off through their actions, then they have another good reason to continue their crusade.

However, I would ask if the drive the Edwardses possess to fulfill their goals exists for all the right reasons. Mrs. Edwards' concern for her "legacy" speaks of a desire to create something of permanence, something that will exist after her death and pervade the memories of those who might have otherwise forgotten her. A desire, a drive for permanence is a disservice to yourself and to those closest to you. Very few people's deaths are heralded by an entire nation, and even fewer are still remembered by the same number of people a year or so later. Worrying about your image in the eyes of complete strangers is a foolish cause, even more so when you use what you know to be the last several years of your life obsessing rather than tending to what you really care about.

I am not Mr. or Mrs. Edwards. I don't know their motivation firsthand. I don't know what they really care about, and I don't know what is best for them or their family. But Mrs. Edwards should have good reasons to spend one of what could easily be the last several years of her life working to change the minds of indifferent and cynical strangers instead of spending more time with those close to her.

Jack Garigliano (garigliano@wisc.edu) is a freshman majoring in English.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (March 28, 2007 @ 3:46am):

It's a personal decision. One that you need to not comment upon. Let them do as they please.

Anonymous (March 28, 2007 @ 5:11am):

What would you expect from a guy who owns a house larger than most lots (0.6 acre house, not lot)? This is the guy who says he is in it for the common person (meanwhile, taking from the rich (doctors) putting it into his own pocket and watching medical expenses rise). Of course, it is all about John Edwards and no one else.

Anonymous (March 28, 2007 @ 8:00am):

You're a dick. Anyone who has ever known a victim of cancer thinks you're a dick. This article is completely offensive, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Anonymous (March 28, 2007 @ 8:11am):

If Elizabeth were to die from cancer, pundits like Rush Limbaugh and little hack oped writers like you will be jumping around accusing John Edwards of using it to bolster his ratings. Are there inconsistencies in his poverty programs? Of course. But save that for the debates and the primaries, and keep family health matters out of the race.

Anonymous (March 28, 2007 @ 8:46am):

The guy got mega-rich off dead babies - what did you expect?

Anonymous (March 28, 2007 @ 9:28am):

This article is in poor taste. You accuse Mrs. Edwards of being selfish for wanting to leave a legacy, yet if the legacy she is trying to leave would be one of hope or courage in the face of adversity, I would welcome it. Even if all she does is leave money for research toward a cure for cancer, it is something she did not have to do.

I do not support John Edwards, I would never vote for the man, but accusing him of using this to bolster his poll ratings would be wrong when no such evidence exists. In truth it probably will help him. It is a simple fact that when personal tragedy strikes, a politician's poll ratings will improve. It does not require anyone using it as a talking point, it simply happens.

The bottom line is that, as others have said and will continue to say, this is a very personal decision. Unless John Edwards were to blatantly use this in his stump speeches as a rallying point, let him be. Comment on his policies and ideas - there is more than enough material for criticism there - but leave his wife alone. After all, his name is the only one on the ballot.

~Mike Hahn

Anonymous (March 28, 2007 @ 9:36am):

First off, I'm pretty sure that Jack is covering it because the rest of the media raised the question - its an interesting question.

Second off, He's not a dick. He just wrote an article on a tough moral decision that isn't his.

Now that we have that straight, the media need to leave this issue alone. Let them have their decision and leave it be.

Anonymous (March 28, 2007 @ 12:27pm):

The more I read this article, particularly the 2nd to last paragraph, I realize that you're a full-blown dick.

Do you want her to sidetrack her and her husband's goals so that they can start digging a grave?

Some people want to just stay alive, she wants to make a difference.

Katie Couric's a dick too.

Add a comment

We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.