Among the many criticisms voiced about Democratic presidential candidates is the absence of detailed policy positions. John Edwards has a new article in Foreign Affairs entitled “Reengaging With The World.”
“Summary: In the wake of the Iraq debacle, we must restore America’s reputation for moral leadership and reengage with the world. We must move beyond the empty slogan ’war on terror’ and create a genuine national security policy that is built on hope, not fear. Only then can America once again become a beacon to the world.”
The article runs 5700 words over six pages, refocusing the issue of US national security in terms of resolving a broad range of potential threats from armed assault to third-world hunger and disease. A synopsis here wouldn’t be fair to either Edwards or potential readers but this paragraph reflects the overall tone:
” We must move beyond the wreckage created by one of the greatest strategic failures in U.S. history: the war in Iraq. Rather than alienating the rest of the world through assertions of infallibility and demands of obedience, as the current administration has done, U.S. foreign policy must be driven by a strategy of reengagement. We must reengage with our history of courage, liberty, and generosity. We must reengage with our tradition of moral leadership on issues ranging from the killings in Darfur to global poverty and climate change. We must reengage with our allies on critical security issues, including terrorism, the Middle East, and nuclear proliferation. With confidence and resolve, we must reengage with those who pose a security threat to us, from Iran to North Korea. And our government must reengage with the American people to restore our nation’s reputation as a moral beacon to the world, tapping into our fundamental hope and optimism and calling on our citizens’ commitment and courage to make this possible. We must lead the world by demonstrating the power of our ideals, not by stoking fear about those who do not share them.”
Some have suggested that Democrats come in two forms, either “stupid/clueless rubberstamp puppets” or “New Monarchists lusting for the throne” (and here I paraphrase, not wishing to single out any one person, there has been a lot of agreement on that assertion.) I would argue, along with Vastleft and Ruth and a few others here, that more than a few Democrats are neither of these and in fact are decent, upright, competent and patriotic Americans with the very best of intentions.
John Edwards is one of the good ones.
Front page
I agree that Edwards is one of the better ones
The problem is that institutionally, the Democratic Party seems to have no way to purge itself of the assholes, or discipline them, so all Democrats get tarred. (And they should be tarred. It’s a party, not an “autonomous collective,” and it’s not like we’re talking about the actions of a few, here.)
Take Jane Harman. Please. We’ve got her signing off on the use of spy satellites for domestic surveillance, after she sat on Bush’s warrantless surveillance program. Sure, Pelosi didn’t make her chair, but she’s still in there, causing Constitutional havoc and destruction.
So, please, let’s not mistake signs of life for true health. The Democrats have a long way to go, and sometimes screams of pain are the result of cutting out dead tissue…
I really think it’s down to the old frogs in boiling water metaphor. The water is heating up out here, and we’re starting to notice. But the water has been a lot hotter a lot longer in the Beltway, so what strikes us—rightly—as serious, as extreme seems perfectly normal to them. And so they blink their eyes, and look around, and wonder what all the fuss is about.
We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan
lol, bringiton
you know, i just can’t decide if you need a zucchini or a good spanking more…
anyway- hey! haven’t i already come out for Jonny, several times? why, yes i have. All Corrente hearts him, in fact.
Edwards, at this point, is
Edwards, at this point, is the only supportable Democratic candidate. I just can’t bring myself to vote for the others. Sure, they might bring a slightly worse governing style, but in the end it’s just window dressing. Most Democrats and all Republicans seem to be controlled by one relatively small group of people. I know that sounds like a conspiracy theory, and I don’t care. There is just no other real and viable reason why nothing ever seems to change. Elite theory is right.
Progress With Progressives
CD hearts Edwards and even the cautious Soullite finds him supportable, so with the aging Jerry Brown thrown in we’re up to one-and-a-half Decent Dems. That is some progress. Now if I can only find a way to persuade that Lambert fellah……”one of the better” isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement.
Surely there will be some comment and discussion here after everyone has had a chance to read and digest Edwards’ 5700 word detailed position paper? Does he have the right list of topics? What about his approach to each? How will his take on foreign policy square with progressive domestic needs? There was a call from several of the Corrente Fellows for more than just talking points from the candidates, can’t be that y’all would just skip right past this opportunity. That would be sooooo disappointing.
i don't read long "position papers" anymore, bringiton
sure, i could…but what matters to me is what is done, not what is promised. i’m being nasty and cynical, but i believe we live in an age when the “white paper” is as useful as the softer, fluffier kind.
edwards will or will not prove his worth when his time comes. it’s important to know what he said he’d do, but more important to see what he actually does, when some “crisis” comes upon him.
just as in kremlinology, there is a value to analysing speeches and position papers and stumps. there is more value to be had by looking at past behaviors and actions. if i am lukewarm on edwards, it’s because i recall he initially was one of the pro war crowd. i give him great, great respect for admitting that he was wrong, but i don’t forget that serious, significant, mistake.
The only positions I care about...
… OK, OK, I won’t go there. Even though it is, after all, Friday night, and I’m alternately coding and distracting myself/procrastinating here….
Anyhow, I’m with CD. I remember the first computer show I went to, where I (and many others!) collected all the marketing literature and carefully organized it in three ring binders… And so with position papers.
I’m with CD. It’s necessary that position papers are being written, because policy is hard, but not sufficient.
To CD’s list of what makes for sufficiency—past behaviors and actions—I’d also add words, considered as “performatives” that change the terms of discourse. The “elevator speech” is just as important in politics as in marketing, maybe more so.
Anyhow, I don’t have to read the paper. Elizabeth Edwards came onto Kos and put herself on the line, and we can hold her—and him—accountable when the time comes.
The rest of them can do that, too, and I won’t have to plow through 5000 pages of wonkery.
And I’m also with CD on Edwards Iraq vote. As I’ve said, it bothered me that he deferred to Bush. We’re going to need to see more critical thinking from him in the future.
We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan
Maybe it's my Christian upbringing
but I’m a big devotee of the whole sin-repent-remorse-absolution cycle, especially needed by me what with all my own sinning. If we hold people interminably accountable for past errors even after they’ve been renounced and apologized for, then they just pile up to the point where no one can be trusted.
He said he was wrong, he said he was sorry, he says he wants to do what ever can be done to make it better. For me it’s then over and done with, the critical thinking and courage that recanting required has more than made up for the original error, time to move on. IMHO.
Modified rapture
Trust, but verify. I’m more enthusiastic about Edwards then I am about any of them so far, but my concerns are not entirely allayed. I felt that the issue was not only the vote, but the habits of thought or acculturation that Edwards said led to it: Essentially, Deference. This fundamentally aristocratic value (see links in the post) is deeply embedded in the Beltway and quite problematic. I need to see Edwards visibly overcome that. I don’t have a recipe for how he can do it, but when the time comes, as CD says, we’ll see.
It’s great to recognize error and repent, but even better not to make the error, and even better to recognize what caused the error, and fix that. Especially when the error leads to the greatest strategic disaster in American history.
We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan
Error Free Living
great idea, let’s bottle the recipe and we’ll make a fortune. Lots of big errors made by every good person, including all the usual heroes. Name me a great historical personage without failings. Seems a rigid standard, I’m more interested in the ability to recognize the failure and the vow to do better. Seems to me about all that can be asked of another human, and more than most can seem to do.
Edwards was only four years into his Senate term when the Iraq authorization vote was held, a little fast for him to have become Beltway acculturated. Hard to find anyone running with more of an outside the Beltway history, and he certainly isn’t adverse to going after the powerful. We’ll learn more as things go along.
Wait a minute. Lambert, Edwards was the JUNIOR
Senator from his State at the time, and (not to be overly deferential to a man I don’t really know) was working from a position of being “the new kid on the block,” literally.
I don’t think I’m near as mad at him about not being able to see through the BS in 2003 as I am at the hordes of “stay the course” Dems now (I’m lookin’ at YOU, Hillary).
Before he was a Senator, he was a trial lawyer.
He didn’t rise up from the Congress or a Statehouse and he wasn’t a First Spouse, and I know I’d’ve been a lot more gullible as a first-term Senator with no prior political experience than I would’ve been if I’d’ve been Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton in 2003.
I’m just sayin’, you know? I mean, seriously.
Bringiton,
you owe me a coke, dude.
Sarah, 2003 is three years after 2000 and one year after 2002
Can you think of anything that happened in 2000, or anything that happened in 2002, that might have made Bush seem less than trustworthy? (The same question and implied response applies to the “not Beltway acculturated” that bringiton makes.)
It’s nothing to do with being a Junior Senator, or a Senior one.
Now, again, it’s a trust but verify thing with me. I know what I’ll be watching for.
God knows this is better than the kind of crap we get from Hillary, bless her heart.
Sarah, bringiton, neither of your responses are on point with respect to the argument I’m making on habits of thought. It’s late, I have a long day ahead, and I’m not going to restate it. Cute riff on “let’s bottle it,” but, again, not on point.
We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan
Sarah,
You want that with ice?
Lambert, did you have any particular outrage
from 2002 in mind?
Geeze O Pete, he still only looked this bad:
at the state of the union address in ’02.
Hadn’t really gotten rolling on his war in Iraq yet.
I could be facetious and say
no, Scotch, but really, I’ve had both my beers for this year. And since I quit my job I haven’t had the urge to hit the bottle once. :D
I will, however, take advantage of your generosity this way:
The quote for Kirk
“All, right - it’s instinctive. But the instinct can be fought. We’re human beings, with the blood of a million savage years on our hands. But we can stop it! We can admit we’re killers, but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes. Knowing that you’re not going to kill…today.”
is from A Taste of Armageddon, Season One Episode #23, and begins on Stardate 3192.1 (Earthyear 2267).
Man, I hope some of us make it long enough, and with enough dedication to liberty and justice for all, so that there *is* an Enterprise in 2267 (and not a mirror-verse version, instead).
The 2002 mid-terms
Where Bush was clearly using the run-up to the war as a political tool. (The same play we saw him run just now on gutting FISA, BTW, which you’d think us being in the majority would prevent, but apparently not.) And since all the logistics were being pre-positioned the whole time, clearly war was almost certainly going to happen, and everything else more than likely to be kabuki…
Remember “From a marketing point of view, you don’t roll out new products in August”? (Andrew Card, quoted in The New York Times: Sept. 7, 2002).
We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan
Its Captain and Coke, Hon,
not Scotch. Job or no job you need to get out more. \~/
Augh.
In September of 2002 I was *not* focused on politics. Rather than go into it at length I’ll say that my father passed away 11/11/2002 and let you draw your own conclusions about whether I was appropriately outraged about Bush. By the time I came up for air in March 2003, I was in a hospital bed, watching “Shock and Awe” between episodes of unconsciousness.
Bringiton — Captain Morgan is, I admit, not an officer whose acquaintance I have made. Do you recommend the Captain? I can say with absolute conviction that Jose Cuervo is a deadly smooth devil, and when he wears his green jacket Jack Daniels is nothing short of an assassin.
Oh, Sarah Baby, have I got something good for you
Cap’n ’n’ Coke, double, in a highball glass on the rocks with a lime. Cuba Libra! with spice and a kick. Couple of those and all your troubles melt away - at least until morning.
Lambert:"the argument I’m making on habits of thought"
You wrote “Sarah, bringiton, neither of your responses are on point with respect to the argument I’m making…” Perhaps why I’m not on point with my comments is because apparently I have no understanding of what you’re saying. Try again, please, when you can and I’ll try to address it.
Edwards Calls Coulter 'She-Devil'
Seriously, aren’t you starting to
really like this guy?
Now, if he'd called her Adam's Apple a she-devil...
Anyhow, here’s the link.
I imagine there’ll be a storm of wingerly frothing and stamping about this, as well as grave concern among Teh Serious
. We’ll see how it plays out.
We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan
The argument
Check out the original post.
We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan
The Argument on habits of thought
Read back through the link. Habits of thought. Deference.
Edwards is a really bright, articulate, nice, affable, warm, tough son of a bitch from a working class home who kicked the hell out of hundreds of high-powered high-paid corporate suits on behalf of injured common people who otherwise would have had no recourse for justice, and yes he made a small fortune doing so. As a very junior Senator he trusted not just George Bush, about whom he had misgivings, but also the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the FBI, the Director of the CIA, and the Director of National Intelligence. Edwards wasn’t the only one who was fooled, but he since has admitted it was the wrong decision and apologized. Everyone makes mistakes. Takes an honest person to own up to it. For me it’s a net plus. Pretty good habits of thought all things considered, and better than anyone else I see out there by a long ways plus he’s electable.
I believe this does address your argument. Not a rebuttal but then perhaps one isn’t possible, perhaps too dependent on each of our points of view, not resolvable, just a disagreement.