OPINION & EDITORIAL
Edwards lesser of three evils
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Kyle Szarzynski:
- The 'Gravy Train' unfairly railed on (December 11, 2007)
- John Edwards may prove best option (December 4, 2007)
- America, stop kneeling at altar of religious insanity (November 27, 2007)
- Critics ignore Kumar's progressive strides (November 26, 2007)
- Islam no defense for extremist action (November 20, 2007)
Related Stories:
- I'll take a female president, just not her (December 3, 2007)
- John Edwards may prove best option (December 4, 2007)
- Obama's charisma essential to victory (January 29, 2007)
- Barack Obama: Political St. Nick (October 15, 2007)
- 'Oprabama?' No thank you (December 10, 2007)
by Kyle Szarzynski
Monday, January 21, 2008
With Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama neck and neck, the consensus opinion — fueled by the corporate media — has thus far predictably opted for the banal choices, separated only by rhetoric, gender and the melanin concentration in their skin. One speaks a lot about “experience” and the other promises (oh, God) “change,” neither of which amount to anything more than the typical artificial differences that separate establishment candidates.
If you haven’t vomited yet, just remember both of them have a lot of money to fight with, so the race will likely last well into February. We can look forward to more debates about who better fulfills Platonic ideals, minutia about past inconsistencies and louder attacks against the surface of the Bush administration’s crimes, all of which are supposed to constitute a functioning democracy and give voters a real choice.
Excuse me for calling this what it really is: bullshit.
The truth is that neither Ms. Clinton nor Mr. Obama, both mainstream Democrats who have been pushed slightly to the left by the other frontrunner, are reason to hope for any major reversal from the current militarism and neoliberalism. Mr. Obama at least speaks in lofty, progressive terms, but lurking beneath is a set of policies that are something quite different. Ms. Clinton makes no such pretensions –– all she’s got are the bad policies.
A few examples should suffice:
Both refuse to promise a complete withdrawal of troops by the end of their first term in office. Both are self-described supporters of the “War on Terror.”
Both support the Patriot Act. Both support the construction of a wall along the southern border to keep out Mexican migrant workers. Both support increased limits on the right to sue corporations. Both oppose gay marriage.
Amid the fumes, both toxic and obscuring, of the corporate media’s role in presidential politics is John Edwards, the one frontrunner candidate who has at least gestured in the direction of real progressive change. Unlike his rivals, he has acknowledged the existence of (gasp!) poverty and class. Mr. Edwards has spoken to the concerns of the working majority — particularly the most disenfranchised — and pointed the finger of accusation at American corporations.
What’s more, his policies are excitingly bold, at least by presidential standards. He wants an almost $4 increase in the minimum wage, universal health care, affordable college tuition, an end to torture, a closure of all nefarious detention centers and, per his most recent policy announcement, a rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Edwards has vowed not to accept money from lobbyists.
The former North Carolina senator — though nothing more than the left-wing establishment candidate and far from ideal — has spoken passionately on behalf of the concerns of the working class and railed against a system that, as he loves to point out, is quite broken. He is a candidate with whom progressives of all kinds can reconcile themselves. Even Ralph Nader, perhaps the loudest critic of the Democratic Party’s failures, has finally found himself an acceptable candidate within the confines of the rotten two-party system.
While Mr. Edwards talks about wrestling with corporate power, Ms. Clinton snuggles with it. Her top campaign advisers are all corporate shills, including her chief strategist, Mark Penn, who heads one of the biggest public relations firms in the world. Her campaign events regularly feature high-profile corporate lobbyists, an indication of the same sickening corporate welfare we have to look forward to in her inauguration. And if the administration of her husband (whose legacy she curiously considers her own) is any indication, we can look forward to more NAFTAs, welfare cuts and bank-mergers.
Mr. Obama grasps at an approach somewhere in between, opining that we need to reconcile our differences and “unify” this torn nation. Blissfully ignorant of class antagonisms, he preaches that “we are all one nation” and that it’s time to transcend our differences, whatever that means. Message to Obama: Health insurance companies and other Fortune 500 companies are the problem, certainly not part of the solution; universal health care and economic justice can only be achieved by waging a struggle, not engaging in good-natured negotiation. Then again, these aren’t part of his policy agenda, anyway.
In accordance with “lesser-evilism,” I suppose I’ll have to force myself to vote for Mr. Obama or Ms. Clinton in the general election, even if Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party more accurately reflects my politics. But I will only be able to do so with rubber gloves, a pinched nose and enough decontaminant to rid my periphery of a fashionable, fungal and ultimately futile liberal politics.
Kyle Szarzynski (kszarzynski@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in Spanish and history.
Anonymous (January 22, 2008 @ 2:09am):
Kyle, you already wrote this article on December 4th.
"John Edwards may prove to be best option"
http://badgerherald.com/oped/2007/12/04/john_edwards_may_pro.php
You spent all of last semester using your column as an anti Barack Obama mouthpiece. I'm not sure if this campus can take another semester of your trite arguments and rehashed tirades.
I also hope you realize that John Edwards is a politician. He has proven throughout his campaign that it is all too easy to say "I'm sorry" regarding his Senate career. I'm suprised you of all people, Mr. Campus Cynic, would buy into Sen. Edwards' diatribe. His record is completely inconsistent with his rhetoric, more so than any other candidate on the Democratic side. Although I am an avid Kucinich supporter, atleast I can recognize that when Obama talks about change and fighting the status quo, he is speaking from experience; he organized the unemployed and poor on the streets of the South Side of Chicago for 4 years of his life after his undergrad. Senator Edwards was too busy chasing ambulances.
Grow up, get off your high and mighty chair, and for once write a political commentary that doesnt involve whatever juvenile/jealous grudge that you have against Sen. Obama. Also, realize that if Edwards got the nomination, history has shown that he would be morph into a calculated centrist candidate faster than you can say Hillary Clinton.
Anonymous (January 22, 2008 @ 8:23am):
Here's the problem with the extreme left (and extreme right): You think your views represent the center of America. Go vote for your stupid Green party candidate if they represent your views and shut the hell up!
Anonymous (January 22, 2008 @ 11:10am):
Right on Szarzynski...if Edwards hadn't been in this race, most of the progressive ideas currently being debated would have been squelched by the other candidates' moderate views as they looked toward the general
Anonymous (January 22, 2008 @ 12:06pm):
Mr. Szarzynski wisely ignores the identity politics that have proved the most superficial and destructive force in the Democratic Party for a number of years and focuses on the issues. Anybody who takes a serious look at the actual policy proposals and positions of the Democratic candidates will plainly see that John Edwards' are the best, from his widely-praised method of implementing universal health care to his ambitious yet wholly-feasable plan to fight global warming.
An additional factor that one rarely hears about is the effect that the Democratic Party's Presidential candidate will have on candidates further down the ballot. While Obama and Clinton have shown themselves to be highly divisive figures, polling has shown for months that John Edwards is the only candidate who can win in red states or blue ones (anyone who doesn't believe that these distictions exist, ((cough, Mr. Obama, cough)) has no sense of political reality in America) and for that reason will be able to take office a year from now with a stronger, more potent Democratic majority with which to enact the reforms this country so desperately needs.
Anonymous (January 22, 2008 @ 2:44pm):
Senator Russ Feingold does not seem to agree with you. From an interview Sen. Feingold gave the Appleton Post-Crescent
"The one that is the most problematic is Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war ⦠He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.
When you had the opportunity to vote a certain way in the Senate and you didn't, and obviously there are times when you make a mistake, the notion that you sort of vote one way when you're playing the game in Washington and another way when you're running for president, there's some of that going on."
http://www.postcrescent.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080117/APC06/801170560/1036
Anonymous (January 23, 2008 @ 12:20am):
Edwards used to buy into the idea you had to vote a certain way to be a viable presidential candidate and to be reelected in a southern state like North Carolina. But it is clear that was never the real John Edwards. The rhetoric he espouses now is what he really believes. He's broken free of the corrupt DC consultant class. He won't win mostly because of the "phony" image perpetuated by the mainstream media. Wealthy people simply don't care about the poor, it cannot be!
Anonymous (January 23, 2008 @ 9:33am):
Even if this is the real Edwards, doesn't it say something about his character that while he was in office he never acted on his convictions?
Anonymous (January 23, 2008 @ 10:01am):
John Edwards- A Pro-Choice candidate who won millions by arguing before a judge and jury about the vital signs of fetuses such as their heartbeats and sensitivities. Yeah that seems about right.
Anonymous (January 23, 2008 @ 12:41pm):
Re 12:20am I can't tell if you are being serious (in which case you are delusional) or sarcastic. The problem is, no one knows who the real John Edwards is, but his voting record suggests he is a man who wants to keep his job and maybe become president. I'm not sure that wanting to be president is enough of a reason that he should BE president.
Anonymous (January 23, 2008 @ 9:24pm):
If you want "left," don't even think Edwards, think about the bald-headed meatball cross-dresser from NYC, Rudy Guiliani... 9/11.
Anonymous (January 23, 2008 @ 10:09pm):
Edwards clearly has his shortcomings, as the above comments show... but... as the headline says, he's still better than the other two "front-runners."
Anonymous (January 30, 2008 @ 2:48pm):
From a grammatical perspective, technically he would be the 'least of three evils'.
Just saying.
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.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
