I was stunned and saddened this morning to hear about the end of John Edwards’ presidential campaign. I feel that it is a terrible loss for our country, as well as for the dreams and legacy of one of our country’s greatest leaders, Martin Luther King, Jr.
I had started writing this post prior to hearing the news of Edwards dropping out, and I was planning to use it as one more argument advocating for his nomination. I decided to post this anyhow because the issues are still relevant. John Edwards won’t be elected president this year. But the issues that he fought for (and which I assume he will continue to fight for if his wife’s illness doesn’t prevent him from doing so) are as relevant as ever, and that’s what this post is about.
Some thoughts on identity politicsDuring a recent Democratic presidential debate a woman asked John Edwards if he could explain why African-Americans should vote him, given the historic opportunity that now exists to elect our first African-American President. Her premise (my interpretation) was that, given the long history of repression of black people in our country, electing a black president would bring a new sense of pride and empowerment to them.
The question put Edwards in a very difficult bind. On the one hand, the issue that the woman spoke of threatened to doom his presidential campaign. By giving credence to her premise he could contribute to the demise of his campaign. On the other hand, I don’t doubt that he at least partially agreed with her premise (as I did). By responding too aggressively against it he might appear insensitive – or even racist to some. So he kind of punted. I don’t mean that as a criticism – I think he did as well as he could with such a difficult question. Rather than directly answering it, he said that he didn’t feel comfortable telling African-Americans how to vote, and he went on to reiterate his own strengths.
As it turned out, the black vote in the South Carolina primary pretty much finished off whatever chance John Edwards had of winning the presidency. While winning the white vote (40% for Edwards, 36% for Clinton, 24% for Obama), Edwards won only 2% of the black vote (
according to exit polls), against 78% for Obama and 19% for Clinton). Whether or not Edwards’ dismal showing among black voters was related to the issue raised by the woman at the debate is a question nobody can answer with certainty. But it certainly wasn’t due to Edwards’ stands on issues which affect those voters. Certainly John Edwards’ stands on issues that affect black voters warranted way more than 2% of the vote – and that’s what’s so sad about this whole thing.
More thoughts on identity politics – some personal perspectiveMy parents and grandparents identified themselves as Jews much more than I ever did. Probably that was largely due to the anti-Semitism that my parents experienced to some degree and my grandparents experienced to a very large degree through much of their lives. My parents often tried to encourage me to retain my Jewish “identity”, even though they weren’t religious at all. That seemed somewhat hypocritical to me, or even racist, and I resented it. My dad, who was a psychologist, explained to me that oppressed and persecuted groups need to retain their group identity in order to help with the development of their ego and nurture healthy personality development.
But I never bought that idea, and not only because I had never felt oppressed with respect to my Jewish “identity”. Why should I take “pride” in being Jewish, when I had absolutely nothing to do with it? By the same token, why should I take “pride” in being an American?
I can be proud of my achievements because I earned them. Or I can be proud of being a John Edwards supporter because that says something about who I
am. But why should anyone be proud of anything that was given to them at birth? I’m sorry, but that doesn’t sound healthy to me.
Well, maybe my dad was right, I just don’t know. Maybe black people in our country
should feel a sense of pride for having a black president. Maybe I just can’t see it because I never experienced the oppression and discrimination that many of them have experienced.
Anyhow, my
opinion is that much more of us should identify with being human than with our race, ethnic group, gender, sexual orientation, or nationality. The humanity that we all have in common is – or should be – much more important than the differences that separate us. And if more of us did that we would have far fewer wars, and world civilization would be in much better shape than it is now.
The legacy and dreams of Martin Luther King, Jr. As the only American to currently have a national holiday named after him, Martin Luther King, Jr. is deservedly and widely recognized in our country today as one of our country’s greatest historical leaders. He led the Civil Right Movement in our country from approximately 1956 until his death in 1968, culminating in the passage of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the
Voting Rights Act of 1965. The primary tactic of his civil rights work was
civil disobedience, for which he was
imprisoned and eventually assassinated.
Up until 1965, the primary beneficiaries of his achievements were African-Americans. They had been widely and severely discriminated against with respect to almost everything, especially voting, and especially in the South. The two above noted federal statutes represented some huge steps towards remedying those problems.
But between 1965 and his death, King’s efforts took on a wider scope which isn’t well understood or appreciated in our country. He began to address economic inequality – economic justice – in a manner that ignored racial distinctions. As
described by Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon:
He maintained that civil rights laws were empty without "human rights" – including economic rights. For people too poor to eat at a restaurant or afford a decent home, King said, anti-discrimination laws were hollow…
King developed a class perspective. He decried the huge income gaps between rich and poor, and called for "radical changes in the structure of our society" to redistribute wealth and power. "True compassion," King declared, "is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring."
His fight for justice continued up until the end of his life:
In his last months, King was organizing the most militant project of his life: the
Poor People's Campaign. He crisscrossed the country to assemble "a multiracial army of the poor" that would descend on Washington – engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience at the Capitol, if need be – until Congress enacted a poor people's bill of rights. Reader's Digest warned of an "insurrection."
King's economic bill of rights called for massive government jobs programs to rebuild America's cities. He saw a crying need to confront a Congress that had demonstrated its "hostility to the poor" – appropriating "military funds with alacrity and generosity," but providing "poverty funds with miserliness."
And he was also one of our country’s greatest critics of the Vietnam War, and U.S. foreign policy in general:
In his "
Beyond Vietnam" speech… King called the United States "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." From Vietnam to South Africa to Latin America, King said, the U.S. was "on the wrong side of a world revolution." King questioned "our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America," and asked why the U.S. was suppressing revolutions "of the shirtless and barefoot people" in the Third World, instead of supporting them.
In foreign policy, King also offered an economic critique, complaining about "capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries."
One might think after having a national holiday named after him that MLK’s legacy and dreams are fully appreciated in the United States. But one would be wrong to think that. As the above quotes should make clear, MLK’s quest was for justice – for black people, white people, Americans, people from other countries – all people. Though he led our country through some huge steps in that direction, he fully recognized that we were still a long way from that goal. He was still pursuing it vigorously when he was cut down by an assassin’s bullet.
The elites of our country – those who FDR referred to as the “
Economic Royalists” – aren’t necessarily overtly racist. It doesn’t bother them much (if at all) that Martin Luther King is a national hero. The fact that African-Americans have formal civil rights today doesn’t bother them. Nor does the idea of an African-American President worry them, just as they aren’t the slightest bit bothered by having an African-American on the United States Supreme Court. As long as they maintain and expand their wealth and power, they’re perfectly ok with all of that.
What really bothers them are proclamations to the effect that the United States is not a just society. If enough people believe that they will put pressure on our government to make things better. Americans might clamor for social programs that will help the poor to climb out of poverty. That might require such things as government regulation of corporations in the public interest or tax increases for corporations and wealthy individuals. In short, it would reduce income inequality in our country and reduce the wealth and power of the elite.
That is why so few people in our country today understand the real Martin Luther King, Jr. Cohen and Solomon explain:
National news media have never come to terms with what Martin Luther King Jr. stood for during his final years…
In the early 1960s, when King focused his challenge on legalized racial discrimination in the South, most major media were his allies. Network TV and national publications graphically showed the police dogs and bullwhips and cattle prods used against Southern blacks who sought the right to vote or to eat at a public lunch counter….
As 1995 gets underway, in this nation of immense wealth, the White House and Congress continue to accept the perpetuation of poverty. And so do most mass media. Perhaps it's no surprise that they tell us little about the last years of Martin Luther King's life.
MLK’s legacy and dreams and John Edwards’ presidential campaignsMartin Luther King, Jr. died almost 40 years ago. Since that time, with the possible exception of George McGovern in 1972, no U.S. candidate for President threatened to revive the pursuit of his goals like John Edwards has – both in 2003-4 and 2007-8. Somebody please tell me if I’m leaving something out, but I don’t recall a major candidate for President emphasizing the need to fight poverty like John Edwards has.
Several months ago I posted
an article on DU that looked at the plans of the eight Democratic candidates for combating poverty in the United States. The only two candidates who dealt with poverty to any significant extent were Edwards and Kucinich. John Edwards committed his presidency to
ending poverty in the United States in 30 years.
Specific elements of Edwards’ plan included: A proposal to make quality health care available to all Americans; expanded access to pre-school programs, college, and “second chance” schools for high school dropouts; jobs for all who are willing to work, strengthening of labor laws, and increase in the minimum wage; expanded affordable housing, and: a more progressive tax system, including expanding earned income tax credits by $750 for single adults.
John Edwards was not and is not afraid to speak the truth about the major problems in our country today. On Martin Luther King Day of 2006 he
said this:
We are not yet the America that Dr. King described as he stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. His dream is not yet reality. And as long as injustice and inequality persist in our society, Dr. King’s legacy will endure not just as a dream but as a challenge – a challenge to live by the principles we as a nation were founded upon, a challenge to lift up those who struggle, a challenge to become a source of motivation, guidance, and hope in the lives of others, just as Dr. King has been for us.
The other candidatesAlthough Barack Obama has done and said numerous things that MLK would be happy with, I find much of his centrist-right rhetoric of the past couple of years to be deeply disturbing, and in substantial opposition to MLK’s goals. He talks about “change” a great deal, and even used that concept in his
victory speech following the South Carolina primary to explain why he won there. I found that claim to be disingenuous because he advocates far less change than John Edwards, and less than Hillary Clinton in many ways too. By proclaiming that there is only “
One America” he essentially denies the uncomfortable truths that MKL and John Edwards have tried to communicate to the American people.
He claims that his
praise of Ronald Reagan referred only to Reagan’s communication and political skills. Why then does he refer to “all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s” to explain how Reagan “tapped into what people were already feeling”? The 1960s, as I’ve explained, are known largely for its protest movements – against racial discrimination, the Vietnam War, and poverty. These are the things that Martin Luther King fought and gave his life for. I don’t see how anyone who lived through that period could hear those words from Obama without suspecting that he considers MLK’s efforts on behalf of justice for the American people to be “excesses”.
Why does
Obama say with respect to what he labels “confused Democrats”, “There are those who still champion the old-time religion, defending every New Deal and Great Society program from Republican encroachment”? Does he understand the extent to which Republicans have
dismantled New Deal programs over the past three decades – programs that lifted millions of Americans out of poverty? These were exactly the kind of programs that MKL sought to expand and enhance, in order to produce a more just society.
And why does he say that “the Democratic Party has become the party of reaction. In reaction to a war that is ill conceived, we appear suspicious of all military action…” MLK would role over in his grave if he heard that. The Democratic Party should be less rather than more suspicious of military action?
I think that Barack Obama needs to explain these things. What are the “excesses” of the 1960s that he complains about? What are the New Deal programs that Republicans encroached upon that Democrats shouldn’t have fought to save? And what wars have Democrats been too suspicious of?
I have been accused of giving Hillary Clinton a “free ride” when I rail against Obama like this. I don’t mean to do that. I have serious problems with her as well, in particular the huge amounts of money that she has received from Republicans and her recent vote on the
Kyle-Lieberman amendment, which I do believe increases the likelihood of George Bush starting a disastrous war against Iran. But I don’t have a problem with her rhetoric as I do with Obama’s. Anyhow, I doubt that I’ll be voting for either of the two in the primaries. If Edwards or Kucinich are on the Maryland ballot I’ll vote for one of them, and if they’re not I’ll vote for one of them anyhow (But I
will vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election). .
Final words on Edwards’ withdrawalSome time ago an editorial in
The Nation, titled “
Time to Act on Inequality”, summed up the issue of poverty and inequality with regard to the 2008 election:
Might we hear the candidates address this national scandal and say concretely what they intend to do about it? Republicans, we know, will duck and dodge. But Democratic hopefuls are not exactly speaking out on inequality either. John Edwards is an admirable exception; he has declared unilaterally that income inequality is no longer a taboo subject?
And a more
recent editorial in
The Nation described Edwards’ effect on the other candidates:
Edwards has displayed a smart, necessary partisanship – denouncing corporate power and its crippling influence on government. He has argued with conviction that government does best when it does more for its citizens… His policy proposals are not always perfect, but they are uncommonly detailed and crafted in conjunction with progressive organizations. Most important, his programs were announced first, and they clearly pushed Clinton and Obama in a progressive direction.
Indeed, Edwards has set the pattern for this presidential campaign. He has made poverty and economic justice – the missing legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. – acceptable subjects again in American politics. In doing so, both Clinton and Obama have taken steps to match him. Obama even added a
section on poverty to his website.
I hope that Edwards holds off for a long time before endorsing either of the two remaining candidates. They both want his endorsement. Maybe one of them wants it badly enough to do something significant to get it – like giving John Edwards a say in the shaping of the Democratic Party platform or their administration. Or maybe, even better, we’ll have a brokered convention that will be forced to pick someone else.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
