New Blog: stevenwhite.wordpress.com

Why Barack Obama's Candidacy Matters

A political candidacy is necessarily about more than an individual. It is equally about the mass of other individuals that the candidate brings along. And this is precisely where Barack Obama stands out from every single other candidate in the race. He said tonight that he knows many of his supporters aren't there for him, but for what he represents. It's true in a really important way.

While I can cite endless policy objectives that I think make John Edwards the better candidate, Edwards has never been able to create a movement that is beyond him. The Edwards candidacy is about his populism, his beliefs, his message. But it mostly does not transcend the individual speaking at the podium.

The Obama candidacy does. Obama's candidacy is not merely about the audacity of his own hope, but the audacity of hope for an entire new generation of Americans, young Americans especially. Policy matters, but so too does mobilization. I was always impressed by Obama's community organizer background, but not until tonight did I realize how vastly important it really is. All those young people, independents, and first-time caucus-goers actually showed up. The importance of that really can't be overstated. Mix that with the abilities of a genuine orator and you have the full power of Obama's candidacy.

Ezra Klein captures it best:

Obama's finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don't even really inspire. They elevate. They enmesh you in a grander moment, as if history has stopped flowing passively by, and, just for an instant, contracted around you, made you aware of its presence, and your role in it. He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair. The other great leaders I've heard guide us towards a better politics, but Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves, to the place where America exists as a glittering ideal, and where we, its honored inhabitants, seem capable of achieving it, and thus of sharing in its meaning and transcendence.

And when a black man named Barack can win in Iowa -- a state with a black population hovering between two and three percent -- the glittering ideal of America he espouses does manage to seem somehow attainable. That's the excitement, the hope, that Edwards simply cannot create, however much I agree with almost every word that comes out of his mouth.

Tonight I'm sold on the Obama hype. Whether I wake up tomorrow and roll my eyes at what I'm writing in this post will be the true test of my political loyalties I suppose.

Christopher Hitchens on John Edwards

Christopher Hitchens had this to say about John Edwards:

A couple of years ago I wrote a profile of Sen. John Edwards for Vanity Fair and decided that he is a good man who is in politics for good reasons. He voted for the essential measures on Iraq, but has also made some trenchant criticisms of the Homeland Security farce. I'd add to this that he has since—unlike Joseph Lieberman, say—given up his very promising Senate career in order to run. I leave to you the calculations about his Southern roots, his trial-lawyer connections, and all the rest of it, except to say that he earned his money from fighting large and negligent corporations rather than from fawning on them. I'm totally bored with the idea of "small town" origins, since for generations most Americans have lived either in big cities or suburbs, and it's high time for someone to advertise himself as urbane. However, a good man can be glimpsed even through the necessary hypocrisies of election time. He has a terrific wife, as well.

This is from February 8, 2004. After diving into full-blown Islamofascism vs. Western civilization mode, he ends by declaring, "An Edwards-Kerry ticket would be made up of serious men, at least, and this is a test that people and politicians have to pass whether they are looking for votes or not."

It's odd to agree with Christopher Hitchens, even if it does from time to time happen, although usually we have slightly different reasons.

The Dueling Drawls of Edwards and Thompson

Via Christopher Orr, Peter Mulhern explains his case for Fred Thompson:

Consider that Fred's calm, sensible demeanor permits him to say things that would terrify many ordinary voters coming from someone who seemed less steady. Thompson can say radical things and nobody turns a hair. If any other candidate talked about overhauling social security and the tax code while we fight a global war of which Iraq and Afghanistan are mere outcroppings, a substantial part of the electorate would faint dead away. Try to wrap your mind around the reality that coming off like an old coot having a conversation as he whittles next to the pot-bellied stove down at the country store is an excellent way to attract most American voters.

He is, in other words, the John Edwards for the Republican Party. "Gosh, that's pretty radical stuff, but man do you sound pleasant saying it!" Orr suggests this means Thompson is "[t]oo dull to seem crazy," but it's not exactly dullness, really. It's a seeming lack of pretension. The Edwards Drawl makes leftist semi-populism sound like down home goodness, and the Thompson Drawl makes big business conservatism sound like mom and pop.

Southern White Guys

Tom Schaller notes:

In 1952, according to calculations performed by Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz for Salon, white males were nearly half the American electorate. Thanks to the recent growth in the Latino population, however, the white male share is now dropping about a percentage point a year, accelerating a decline that began with the increased enfranchisement of African-Americans in the civil rights era. In next year's election, white males may account for fewer than one out of three voters. Bubba is no longer a kingmaker.

"Bubba" being Steve Jarding and Mudcat Saunders' term for the white working-class, who they think can join with black Southerners to create a Democratic majority in the region (Schaller's, um, somewhat skeptical and also kind of hates Mudcat). Also interestingly, Schaller discusses John Edwards not as a Southern candidate, but rather as a regionally and racially non-specific one:

At first blush, Edwards, the Southern populist nonpareil, seems ideally situated to corner the market on working-class, white male voters. But aside from his homegrown accent, Edwards displays none of the affectations or semiotics that might once have signaled his intent to woo them. There are no Lamar Alexander-style flannel shirts; there is no sponsorship, à la Florida Sen. Bob Graham four years ago, of a NASCAR racing team. Instead, Edwards -- whose father worked in a textile mill -- hammers the issue of economic justice largely, if not completely, without overt cultural appeals. If he were a character from Southern literature, the former trial lawyer would be Atticus Finch of "To Kill a Mockingbird," not Henry Drummond of "Inherit the Wind."

Did I mention I'm writing my undergraduate thesis on this sort of thing? I'm a little obsessed with the topic, and Schaller makes two interesting points here. First, of course, is the fact that the portion of the electorate made up of white males is declining -- convenient for liberals, because white males are, for example, the only group of young people not heavily favoring the Democratic Party at the moment. Older white males are even more Republican -- except, of course, for white male union members, who Schaller aptly notes continue to vote Democratic, although not quite overwhelmingly. A more diverse electorate means more Democratic votes, and Democrats would be smart to pay attention to changing demographics.

The Edwards thing I'm less certain about. Edwards is making a regional appeal. That Southern accent is one a person can lose (I should know), and while it's true Edwards' main focus is on economic justice defined rather generally, it's clear it comes from his experience seeing particularly Southern poverty (rural poverty in particular). Atticus Finch is still a Southern archetype, even if it's a less offensive one than Henry Drummond.

Who Shall Be the Final Anti-Hillary?

Tom Schaller thinks John Edwards is entering "a crucial period between now and Halloween." He writes:

He somehow needs to shake things up. He should take some chances -- —perhaps a junket to Afghanistan to remind Americans about our abandoned efforts there and that what’s-his-name who masterminded the September 11 attacks, or he might pair up now with a vice presidential running mate to earn some free media. There'’s not room in the Democratic primary for two Hillary-alternative candidates, and if Edwards wants to steal that mantle from the far better funded Barack Obama, now'’s the time for him bust some moves.

It's hard to label the specific Time Edwards Needs to Get His Shit Together By, but clearly Schaller is generally right here. With Clinton's consistent and increasing popularity, there really isn't room for two anti-Hillarys -- at least, come primary season. For now it's actually probably okay, but when it comes time to vote something is going to have to happen (e.g. Obama or Edwards will have to drop out and endorse the other guy) or Clinton has it pretty much in the bag.

John Edwards Knows He Talks Lahk Thee-Is

Via Ezra Klein, a new Time article has John Edwards actually saying the sort of thing I've been thinking for quite some time:

"I think most journalists would agree that I'm the most progressive, Senator Obama next, and Senator Clinton closest to the center. But I'd be willing to bet that if you ask most Americans the same question, they'd reverse it." That's not only, he says, because "she's a woman and he's an African American and Ah talk lahk thee-is. It's simple geography. Ask Middle Americans: You've got three Democratic candidates. One's from New York, one's from Chicago and one's from rural North Carolina. Who do you think is most like you?"

Then there's this description of Edwards' particular style:

He isn't ranting; he's twanging like a bluegrass banjo, rolling along in full control—outraged on behalf of people who have lost their jobs or pensions to corporate restructuring, people who watch their children go off to "this mess of a war in Iraq."

Edwards is of course absolutely, 100% right in his analysis. That controlled, twanged populism leads him not to seem merely outraged, but rather to seem outraged along with you. Which is great. The murky area is whether this is just a nice plus for his candidacy, or if the darker forces lurking beneath -- his beneficial regional identity is bound up in a history of racism -- detract from what otherwise looks like the best one-two progressive combination for the Democratic Party right now. I'm very sympathetic to the Edwards campaign, but I think even Edwards supporters should be careful not to lose track of these realities which -- not the fault of Edwards, but real nonetheless -- aren't particularly progressive at their core.

Headin' Down South

A pro-Obama blogger tallies the number of trips Barack Obama and John Edwards have made to the South: Obama is at 57, Edwards at 56. But take out Texas and Florida, and the tally rests at Obama with 36, Edwards with 45. Interestingly, Edwards hasn't visited either Arkansas or Mississippi. Obama has visited both states once.

Edwards Gets Carter (Kinda)

In much, er, Zbigger news, Jimmy Carter said this about John Edwards:

I can say without equivocation that no one who is running for president has presented anywhere near as comprehensive and accurate a prediction of what our country ought to do in the field of environmental quality, in the field of health care for those who are not presently insured, for those who struggle with poverty.

Not an endorsement, but as close as it's going to get probably.

Being White, Southern Baptist, and a Man

On John Edwards, Popular Heresy writes:

Is it because he’s from the south (and kept the accent)? Is it because he’s Baptist? Is it because he is, in fact, a he? What about John Edwards exudes conservatism when juxtaposed to Clinton when, if you actually listen to them, it’s clear that he is vastly farther to the left?

It's all those things, of course. John Edwards the Liberal sounds like John Edwards the Conservative because he's a white Southern Baptist (although now he's a member of his wife's more liberal church) -- which some people are indeed contrasting with the fact that Barack Obama is black and Hillary Clinton is a woman. Is this really sad and unfortunate? Absolutely. Is it too troublesome to justify the fact that he's making fairly serious liberalism a palatable idea to a large number of people? That's a little harder to decide on. I think Edwards would be a remarkable boost for the mainstreaming of progressivism, but this is clearly at the expense of any kind of identity politics.

John Edwards: The Anti-Socialist Vote

John Edwards is more liberal then Hillary Clinton but perceived by the electorate to be more conservative, and thus he is the better choice for Democratic presidential candidate from a progressive perspective -- that's my take on the situation, at least. On that note, I just came across this little anecdote in a Washington Post article:

But Sparks said that after voting for Republicans his entire life, he will consider Edwards. Asked about Clinton, he said, "Oh, my God, no. She's a socialist."

And there you go.