Why We Need the Edwards Brand of 'Change'
After seven years of Bush incompetence and malfeasance, with 70 percent of the country believing we are on the wrong track, every politician says they're for 'change.' But, of course, 'change' doesn't mean the same thing for every candidate. Nowadays even Mitt Romney, the plutocrat's plutocrat, is unironically trying to sell himself as the 'change' candidate. (Self awareness is not a Romney strong suit).
When a word like 'change' becomes a political mantra like this, the word can be used as much to hide intent as to reveal. And that is problem for all of us who really want to bring the kind of 'change' that revalues work and makes the system in Washington work for the middle class.
We all know that for too long the income and wealth divide in America has been allowed to grow. Wages have stagnated and economic insecurity as spread throughout the middle class while wealth has been concentrated at the top. But, the fact is, change is coming no matter the election results, and, in the short term, much of it may not be good. As the New York Times editorial board noted on Sunday:
As one economic pillar after another began to buckle in 2007 -- lending, home sales and house prices, factory orders, holiday shopping -- economists kept saying that recession was avoidable as long as employment held up. A job means a paycheck, a paycheck means spending, and spending means hope for the economy.On Friday, the Labor Department reported that employment in December had buckled as well. Over all, a meager 18,000 jobs were created. Even worse, hiring in the private sector contracted by 13,000 jobs, a harbinger of recession. The figures are subject to change, but job growth has been slowing since June, making a big upward correction unlikely. The unemployment rate, which is not subject to revision, also jumped in December, rising to 5 percent. As recently as last March, unemployment was only 4.4 percent. Such a big swing in such a short time also suggests a recession.
(Emphasis Added)
As in foreign policy and climate change there's likely to be a lag effect as the next President is forced to deal with the on-going damage of George Bush's dismal legacy in the economy for some time.
So it's incumbent on us as voters to look deep into the exact 'change' proposed and for the candidates to be clear what it is they mean. John Edwards couldn't be clearer about the 'change' he is proposing. As Ezra Klein's insightful take on Edwards's post Iowa speech shows:
.
The talking heads on MSNBC just spent a few minutes puzzling over John Edwards' concession speech. "It had no concession," they fretted. It didn't talk at all about the horserace, or the vote totals. Instead, Edwards spoke of the downtrodden, the uninsured, the insecure, the exploited, the oppressed, the wronged, the scared, the hungry, the homeless, and the poor. It was a fitting speech. It was not about the candidate or the race, but about the ideas, and the individuals they are supposed to help. In that way, it was Edwards' candidacy distilled to its core: A search for justice, a cry for equality, a demand for empowerment.
(Emphasis Added)
If there is a downturn coming, those traits are certainly the ones I would want in our President. Because, despite all of the harm Bush and corrupt system he presides over has caused there is real cause for optimism with a President like John Edwards.
There's a sort of office joke about hitting your head against your desk because it feels so good when you stop. Many of the structural economic problems we face are a bit like that, only it's the Republicans and the entrenched interests that are pushing your head into the desk. Either way, it's going to feel so much better when we stop it; when we realign our tax policy, when we free ourselves from worrying about health coverage, and when we reform our trade policies.
As John Edwards put it in the WMUR debate, where he pledged that his tax and trade policy will always start from the perspective of how it will affect working Americans:
Given the times were in and the system we're facing Edwards is forthrightly proposing exactly the 'change' we need and the fight we need to take on to get it. He's crystal clear about what it is he intends to do, which is important with phonies like Mitt Romney parroting the 'change' line. Not only do the false change messengers clutter the meaning, but 'change' built on vague themes will not last first contact with the swamps of Washington. Luckily, that's not a problem John Edwards will have.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 41 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
