Charles Pierce on John Edwards (And a few thoughts of my own)

As you probably know, the latest chapter in the John Edwards saga is that he didn't just cheat on Elizabeth with Rielle Hunter, but had also apparently availed himself, back in 2007, of the services of an upscale brothel.  He denies it, but then he denied the Rielle Hunter story at first.

Anyway, here's Pierce:

My track record on this guy is pretty clear — and, occasionally, the topic of some hilarity around the home office. This is what I do know about him. John Edwards was the only Democratic presidential candidate since Jesse Jackson who went out of his way to talk about poverty in America. Not in an oblique way. Not as an afterthought after blathering for hours on the pressures on The Middle Class and how he wanted to unleash Small Business, The Engine Of The Economy — both of which, in purely political terms, meant discussing the not-inconsiderable economic perils of struggling white folks. Talking about poverty, and about poor people, meant talking a lot about black people, and that's the kind of thing that Al From and the Democratic Leadership Council convinced a generation of ambitious Democratic politicians was a vote-killing extravagance that the party could no longer afford. I thought that it mattered that there was someone out there at least talking the talk on the big stage about how there are pockets of unforgivable hunger and want in this nation the existence of which should embarrass us all.

And, today, I think about the people in those places who may have heard the same thing in John Edwards that I did, who believed in him more fervently than anyone because of what he was saying about the people like them. Now, they're largely invisible in our politics again, except as people whose interests can be used as chips in our grand bargains. If you want to be pissed at John Edwards, be pissed that he let those people down. I am.

My take's mostly the same, but with some nuances. 

In addition to talking about, and apparently genuinely caring about, reducing poverty, he also was talking about the 1% and the 99% about seven years before it was cool - that's what his "Two Americas" theme of his 2004 campaign was all about: how the top 1% lived in a different world, and operated under a very different set of rules, than the rest of us.  And over the course of 2007, he pulled Clinton and Obama to the left, as he came out with plans for universal health care and climate change mitigation, forcing them to do the same or lose progressives' votes to this annoying third guy in what was supposed to be a two-person race.  We still owe him for that.

He may be a schmuck who let the rest of us down by his inability to keep his pants zipped, but we forgave Bill Clinton, who arguably did more harm to the progressive cause by his infidelities.

Where we should be angry, or at least disappointed, is in two places:

First, that when John Edwards stopped being a voice for issues of inequality and poverty, nobody of note in the Democratic Party picked up the slack.  Edwards certainly let the side down, but there should have been others waiting to fill his space.  There weren't.

And second, even after Elizabeth died, and his life was tied up by legal actions, he still could have continued speaking out about the different rules for the top 1%.  Lord knows there were lots of opportunities for him to step forward in the past three years.  Sure, he had more notoriety than fame, but what the hey: you might as well use notoriety as fame to highlight an issue you care about.  And he would certainly have had more people caring whether the legal system was giving him a raw deal.

Even now, now that the #Occupy movement seems to be foundering, he could make a real contribution to our dialogue.  He's going to be infamous, and he's going to be screwed, whether he takes a stand, or whether he continues to hide from public view.  He might as well rejoin the fight, if he's got any fight left in him.  He's got nothing to lose.

Comments

[kathy a.]

nope. i really miss john edwards' talk about poverty and inequality; i agree that nobody else has picked up the slack; i really care about those issues.

but he utterly destroyed his credibility. he cannot say anything helpful now. one single word, and that is the next ad attacking obama.

i also see no point in giving any attention to this belated story about hookers, which was discounted at the time because the source was unreliable, and deserves no more credit now that it is public, many years later.

[Noah A]

Kathy, I think you missed half of LTC's point here. Yes, he would have liked Edwards to try to do something in the intervening years. He also understands why that didn't happen. But there's something more important than Edwards' voice that's been lost in the political discourse-- it's the people for whom he spoke.

>First, that when John Edwards stopped being a voice for
>issues of inequality and poverty, nobody of note in the
>Democratic Party picked up the slack. Edwards certainly
>let the side down, but there should have been others
>waiting to fill his space. There weren't.

Edwards' voice spoke for a largely invisible group of people. It was because of his activity in the primaries that things like universal healthcare and antipoverty measures came to the forefront of Democratic Party discourse.

He stood for the poor. Nobody else has stepped forward for them. Currently, it doesn't seem like anyone will.

Our nation is diminished in his absence.

[Lex]

He might as well speak up. It's not like speaking up after criminal convictions hurt G. Gordon Liddy and Ollie North, and it might actually do some good, although I doubt it. At any rate, poor people certainly have nothing to lose if he does.

[kathy a.]

weird. commments were off and now they are on.

noah -- i really really wish someone was speaking about poor people. but i do not think edwards speaking up again now would be a good thing. it would be a diversion; anyone who said "yeah, he's right" would be a target. edwards has way too much baggage.

the man really really disappointed me. he very much let down the people he was trying to support.

[joel hanes]

we forgave Bill Clinton

Speak for yourself.

I never cared about his infidelities, but DOMA, NAFTA, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and the end of welfare as we knew it are Republican policies, and did enormous damage to the nation, especially to blue-collar workers.

who arguably did more harm to the progressive cause by his infidelities adherence to corporatism and the "Third Way".

[Davis X. Machina]

Amused at how Gore is to this day castigated for not being able to deliver his own state in 2000, when Edwards, never a great shakes as a senator, was going to lose his Senate seat in NC anyways, and had little to lose by running.

But then, if you're interested in 'fair' you don't go into politics, I guess.

[Corvus9]

I agree with kathy a. Edwards in my mind is similar to Ron Paul. It doesn't help issues like poverty or the war on drugs if their most vocal activists are pariah adulterers or racist cranks. It consigns the issues to the fringe. Edwards should keep his mouth shut.

But you know what, I think another reason he isn't saying anything he because he didn't really care about those issues that much in the first place. He was a vain man who wanted to be president, and in a race against the world's most prominent woman and the cool-headed rising star black guy, the only way a white guy former VP candidate could be competitive was by running to their left on economic policies. I am glad he did it, because I don't think we get healthcare so far up the agenda without him and Elizabeth, but I am even gladder he did not win, and that he isn't trying to say anything now.

[oddjob]

I never trusted John Edwards.

[scott]

I don't have any affection for Edwards now, although I voted for him 4 years ago. But I agree that it was encouraging at the time that you could vote for a presidential candidate who made major part of his campaign the divide between the haves and have-nots. So I am pissed at him because he squandered a wonderful opportunity he was given. And I'm also disappointed like Pierce and ltc that no one on the national level has taken up that argument. Yes, we have Occupy. But we need someone to amplify that argument who has a huge megaphone, and that post is vacant. It's a pity.

[Sir Charles]

l-t c,

Thanks for holding down the fort. Crazy times in the legal biz.

I was torn between Edwards and Obama. (Hillary was in third in my mind because I didn't want to readjudicate the 90s with the Republicans -- who know the crazy was just warming up.) I preferred Edwards message, but liked Obama better as a messenger and ultimately chose the latter. Obama just seemed a more compelling figure.

I am sure I have mentioned this before but I was once stuck in a hideous traffic jam behind Edwards for about 30 minutes. Damned if he didn't play with his hair in the rear view mirror for a huge chunk of the time -- it was actually a revaltory thing I guess.

[mrgumby2u]

I find it interesting that Eliot Spitzer, who was also attacking the inequity problem, but from a different angle, was also laid low by a "prostitute problem." It's hardly a novel observation, but I think it's past time that when Dems get caught up in these imbroglios they take their lumps but stay in the public arena and keep fighting. Republicans do, televangelists do, and they don't suffer any long-term loss of credibility. Spitzer has made some attempt to do this. I'd hope that Democratic pols would stop getting caught with their pants down, but barring that I wish more of them would try some variation of the Spitzer model than the Weiner model.

[kathy a.]

do i need to point out that any woman who has used birth control is now fair game for being called out as a slut?

in this current climate, the impact of the hatred is not so grave on some dude's political career as it is on all women, but especially poor women and poor families.

you just tell me how much good hillary could do if she had a secret family. or if she was caught with an intern.

i personally do not care much about somebody's private life, so long as it is private and not hurting anyone. but someone positioning for big office, to represent millions, cannot assume that there is privacy for extramarital nookie, and especially not when extolling his own family as part of the sales package. i decline to apply the "they're doing it and getting away" argument. We.Are.Not.Those.People.

we need to have what they call in the law "clean hands." we need to walk the walk. we need, as they said during the civil rights movement, to keep our eyes on the prize -- and not behave the way our opponents do. we also need to tell the truth and keep our human compassion, to think bigger than ourselves. we need voices that cannot be shot down with irrelevant things, and we need more voices backing those up.

i can get behind the party of sluts (defined as women who use, have used, and/or support birth control, and allies), but not much behind guys with major zipper control problems.

[KN]

mrgumby2u - Spot on! The key issue is this, it is an ad hominem and false equivalence fallcy to condemn the public activities of a politician because his/her private behavior is repulsive to us. I find it quite ironic that so many catholics still adhere to their "faith" despite the avalanche of evidence that a fraction of their priesthood is comprised of sexual predators.

kathy a. - in a certain sense I agree with you, behaving like an idiot should lead to being considered an idiot. But unfortunately, many other factors come into play. What I think you overlook is that there is a radical double standard for applying the taint to private behaviors. Ironically it could be pointed out that the democratic miscreants are humble and resign their positions of power, whereas the republican miscreants simply double down and get a free pass to go on poisoning society with their juvenile ideas with no consequences at all.

Remembering the election of 2000 I note that the republicans were aggressively loud and deliberately intimidating, confrontational.

Brownshirt tactics. If we don't resist there is deep disaster in our future.

[Corvus9]

I agree with kathy a. Yeah, there is a double standard, but that is because our side is more decent, ethical, and demanding of a higher level of moral character from our leaders. It's a double standard that many democrats insist upon. Those that fail to meet common assumptions of human decency? Well, unless they are really important (like the president), it's not really worth our time, nor are we inclined, to waste time defending the shitheel. Let them go hang. Yeah, it sucks to be a Democrat, but that's the price of being better people than the opposition.

Seriously, these philandering fucks are doing actual harm to the cause, and I see no reason to give any other entitled pricks the delusion that we will tolerate such behavior. Men who want to run for democratic office need to learn to keep it in their pants.

[Corvus9]

And come to think of it, is there really that much of a double standard? I mean, Edwards is out of public life, but Bill Clinton is not. In fact, he's well respected! Weiner is gone, but so is that republican who was texting shirtless photos. Sanford was almost removed from office, and his political career is now over. (Wikipedia says he is now a Fox News Contributor, but he used to be a possible Presidential Candidate. No more.) Ensign is also completely gone from public life. He's working as a veterinarian. Yeah, it's not like those guys resigned, but they are still, effectively, gone. Vitter is more the exception that proves the rule here, but then, he's from Louisiana.

[Sir Charles]

Corvus,

It does seem like the Republicans get to stay in office though -- they don't resign in disgrace.

There is also the amazing degree to which these are people who have had the balls to lecture others about their personal lives, which one really can't say about the Democrats. It's pretty amazing hypocrisy.

Honestly, I don't think marital fidelity is the gold standard for office holders. To me that is between the official and his/her spouse. I just don't want to be lectured to about how to conduct myself by someone like Vitter, Craig, Sanford, or Ensign.

[Joe S]

I also don't think Democrats are, as a group, more morally upstanding than Republicans. I know a good number of elected Democrats and a good number of elected Republicans (as well as staffers). As a matter of moral character, political party doesn't seem to matter too much. Some of them are good people and some of them are bad people.

[Crissa]

This and Corzine are why I insist that 'generic Democrat' wouldn't have done as well or better than Obama. And it's things like this that let me down.

However, I do insist there is something to whether you're immoral in private or immoral in public. Republicans are immoral in public - they insist on laws that don't work, violate the more they insist we follow, and pick the pocket of the people for personal gain. And this isn't in isolation - it is how they politic, how they vote while in office, and how they operate behind closed doors together.