Thursday, December 13, 2007

SWNID Holds Nose, Discusses Dems

We only do this kind of thing because you ask. It isn't easy for us.

Members of the gentle-reader community have requested that we provide SWNIDish analysis of Democratic candidates for POTUS. The request is not that we fillet and flambe the pathetic posse of poseurs who populate the party of "the people." Some cannot bring themselves even to consider a candidate of the GOP, thanks to that party's own rather embarrassing history of misdeeds and mismanagement (cf. human condition, which we excuse in Republicans). For these, we are asked to provide definitive guidance to their alternatives.

So we offer a summation of our SWNIDish view of the Democratic herd, alphabetically by last name and with as much sympathy as we can muster.

Note that we are not critiquing policy positions in detail. We offer the blanket admonition that the Democrats' current preoccupation with the socialism that impoverishes and the pacifism that kills makes it impossible for us to split out their candidates' nuances with any degree of confidence. To put it differently, our political soul asks, what is the point of deciding among people whose political philosophy is inferior to the alternative?

But you asked for it, and we try to oblige.

Joe Biden is at once among the most comical and the most serious of candidates. He's comical because it seems he's run in every election since 1952 that hasn't had a Democratic incumbent in it. He's serious because, unlike just about all the others, he has thoughtfully engaged the Iraq issue. In this matter events have overtaken him, as they have all the Democrats. But Biden deserves props for at least trying to find a thoughtful approach to Iraq that goes beyond the smokescreen of blame and promises.

Anyone who votes for Biden should remember that (a) he has an awful tendency to speak before thinking, a tendency that we recognize easily as a fellow sufferer; (b) he has no chance of actually getting the nomination. A vote for Biden is a vote that he be appointed to the cabinet by the next President, which strikes us as what he's probably after in his campaign, aside from the adrenaline rush of being near the action.

Hillary Rodham Clinton to her credit has staked out the most moderate positions among the major Democrats. And no one doubts her intelligence. The question is whether we want to get on the Clinton joy ride again.

Aside from her sanctimony-tinged ambition, what is Senator Clinton? How can one whose second-most familiar catchphrase is "the politics of personal destruction" allow her campaign to savage Barak Obama for things his kindergarten teacher says and then turn around days later and savage him with rumors of past drug use?

And who has any confidence that she'll be able to control the behavior of her husband if she's in office? One observes that she's had less than full success in doing so in the past. The whole thing starts to look like Putin's Russia, with the quasi-fascist, soon-to-be-ex-President manipulating his way into perpetual power. And further, we blessedly know nothing of the ex-President's "personal" life since he left office. What is he up to that might make him subject to the influences of blackmail when his wife is in office? We seriously doubt that as an old man he's anything other than the dirty kind.

In sum, we think that Hillary would probably not pursue a policy agenda that would damage the country as seriously as others. What should not be underestimated is the degree of risk that one takes with a President who so wholly has sold her soul to obtain political power.

Chris Dodd is, like Biden, a serious-minded Senator with no prospect of national election. Again, we think he's after a cabinet post or the veep nomination. We applaud his statement months ago that he doesn't really think Iraq is lost: events have proved him more right than he could possibly have imagined.

John Edwards is probably the candidate that we SWNIDishly despise most. Edwards has the most obvious connection to the Democratic Party's collocation of special interest groups: among union members, government employees, ideological left-wing counterculturalists, academics, African-Americans and trial lawyers, he is a member in good standing of the last group, an attorney retired from a mega-rich tort practice.

This makes his populism faux populism. Edwards could buy and sell the little guys he claims to stand for. And his roots weren't that humble to begin with: like a lot of overachievers, his family was in middle management, not the working class.

Nevertheless, what makes Edwards abominable is not that his populism is faux, it's that it is empirically false. Edwards's proposals for restrictive trade and labor policies would absolutely cripple American business, destroying the jobs and investment opportunities that his Ordinary Americans need. His solution is worse for the aggrieved than the problem. He knows it (how could he not?), but he's betting that the electorate is too stupid to realize it.

Edwards is still the tort lawyer who advertises on TV that he'll get you the money you deserve. What he doesn't tell you is that the money comes at an enormous cost to everyone--and that he takes his share off the top. This time Edwards isn't taking cases to win settlements that earn him big fees: he's running a campaign on a set of propositions that all self-conscious beings recognize as false in hopes of gaining power, and he's doing it all for poor folks who are powerless to help themselves. How kind of the Great Man!

Mike Gravel is obviously one of that fascinating, ever-changing (except for Alan Keyes) cast of characters who run for President without any hope of getting even a single delegate at the national convention. Let's all be glad that we live in a Republic that still recognizes the doom we'd all face if someone like Gravel were taken seriously.

Dennis Kucinich is reason enough for the rest of Ohio to force Greater Cleveland to secede and join Canada. We know that this nutjob gets a thrill from his occasional appearances on the national stage. We ask another question: what salary does he draw from his campaign?

Barak Obama was best summed up last week by senior statesman and plain-talker Andrew Young. Those who heard only the sound bites should listen to the entire statement, which is a gem of experience and wisdom. We especially note his admonitions that Obama should let his kids get older before he goes for the big prize, not to mention his warnings about suffering.

Obama is perhaps the most gifted politician of his generation. But his youth and inexperience show right now. He doesn't have a clear policy position on anything except health care, the particulars of which were doubtless the product more of his handlers' estimates than of his particular convictions. "Hope" is not a position.

And Oprah shouldn't be a kingmaker. She's the lady who brought America Dr. Phil, for goodness' sake!

We think that Obama should be seen as a formidable personage for Democrats in the future. He should take a page from Hillary's playbook and take some time to build a record (as governor of Illinois, not Senator from Illinois), longer than she did because he's younger (and prettier, for that matter).

As a Republican, what we most fear is a Clinton-Obama ticket. We doubt that any Republican under any circumstances short of an enormous Democrat scandal could overcome it.

Bill Richardson is officially our Biggest Disappointment of 2007 politics. Richardson is far and away the best qualified Democrat in the field. He's not just widely experienced and accomplished; his record is notably rightward by Democrat standards. He understands economics and global politics and has demonstrated the capacity to govern.

The disappointment, of course, is that to separate himself from the crowd he rolled the dice and took the most radical position of Iraq imaginable: every American soldier and Marine out of Iraq in the first year of his administration. Imagine Thomas Dewey in 1944 running on bringing every American home from Europe and the Pacific in 1945. The irresponsibility of the position is unprecedented in a candidate of stature.

We are totally convinced that Richardson currently runs only to become Hillary's veep. He decided to run to the far left on the war. If the war went terribly, he could play his position to get the nomination. If it went even marginally better than that, he could run with Hillary and protect her left flank. We applaud the excellent political calculus and abhor the cynicism that it entails.

Shame on you, Bill! You could have been something special. Now, you're just another hitchhiker trying catch a ride on Clinton's bus. Again.

In sum, for whom should the dedicated Democrat vote? To make a stand on principle with no hope to influence the outcome, it's Biden. To cast a vote for the future with no regard to the present, it's Obama. To support the candidate with the best chance to govern effectively, it's (amazingly, desperately, convulsively) Hillary. But with the attendant risks of her presidency, we urge holding the Democratic nose and voting for Our Man Rudy, who is everything a Democrat should be except for pro-life and a faithful spouse, making him the best Democrat in the field.

20 comments:

Christian said...

Has anybody pointed out how simiilar SWNID looks to John Edwards? I've thought that since the last go round for prez. I think that maybe that's ultimately why SWNID despises him so much. How can he look so much like SWNID but be so wrong?

Jon A. Alfred E. Michael J. Wile E. SWNID said...

As a matter of fact, we believe that we were the first to point out a certain resemblance, in this post.

The photo of Edwards seems to have disappeared, doubtless the consequence of the candidate's shame.

Anonymous said...

SWIND,

Please don't suggest that Obama be gov. of Illinois. As a resident I don't want him here. His stint as state senator was nothing to write home about. So far the same can be said about his time as US senator.

I actually met him once several years ago. At the time Chicago Dems were already saying he would go places. I was not all that impressed. He looks good, sounds good and carries himself well. But I didn't see a lot of substance.

The only bright side to Obama as gov. of Illinois is that it will assure he never becomes president. That reason alone will keep him from seeking the office.

Jon A. Alfred E. Michael J. Wile E. SWNID said...

Like we actually have influence.

And how much worse can Obama be than recent governors of Illinois?

This perspective comes from another state of undistinguished governors.

Carl said...

when will swnid give us his perspective on the gop candidates. we know he dotes on rudy, but what does he think of the recent rise of mr. huckabee?

Unknown said...

Nice alliteration in paragraph 2.

zuqxezzx

Anonymous said...

Of course you have no influence, neither do I. But the mere suggestion made me shiver. I was going to say that the bright side of an Obama governorship would be that he would end up in jail, but he does seem to be a genuinely nice guy, so I wouldn't wish that on him.

However, given the current mess in Illinois, another socialist governor will not help.

Anonymous said...

Finally something worth reading on this site :-)

Anonymous said...

"And his roots weren't that humble to begin with: like a lot of overachievers, his family was in middle management, not the working class."

Sorry, wrong. His Dad started working on the shop floor and was only later promoted to supervisor. His mother owned her own business, refinishing antiques. (I think that's a nice way of saying she ran a consignment shop.)

That's hardly middle management Dr. Weatherly.

Edwards was also the first person in his family to get a college degree.

In these respects his roots are exactly like the people he claims to represent.

Jon A. Alfred E. Michael J. Wile E. SWNID said...

Then, Pat, his roots are just like mine. My dad started working when he was ten and quit school at 16 to support his family. He ended up driving a truck for the parts department of a car dealership, and through hard work and talent eventually ended up managing a car dealership for most of his life. My mother, by the way, grew up on a rented farm, did quite well in high school but chose to become a beautician rather than go to college. Humble stuff for sure, made more humble by the fact that their adolescence was during the depression and their early years of marraige were during WWII, when dad worked in a Naval Ordinance plant and worked his way into management there.

But for me, like John Edwards and a lot of other people who like us, the humble origins of my parents were less formative to my childhood than their achievement and resulting social and economic status. The Weatherlys and the Edwardses weren't rich, but we weren't poor working folk, either. We didn't miss meals, shop for clothes in secondhad stores, or fend off bill collectors. We didn't worry about layoffs, except that they affected the people who worked for our dads. We lived in comfortable homes and enjoyed the benefits of a prosperous economy.

Maybe John Edwards's father did better than mine overall, or maybe the opposite. But I know enough of this kind of story to say that it doesn't ring true for Edwards to claim to stand in solidarity with the working man. The dad that he knew was a manager, not an hourly worker.

To be more specific, as the product of a household very much like the Edwards household, I think it's pretty craven to claim the populist mantle by one's upbringing. Put it in the same category as Hillary claiming to be a Yankee fan. With a story as similar as his, I would never, never consider claiming some kind of special personal authority or kinship to the down-and-out because my father had pulled himself up by his bootstraps from poverty to the middle class. Frankly, if I did, I think people would see right through it.

Further, Edwards's populism portrays the working man and woman as victims of a system that traps them in serfdom, which can only be broked by government intervention in the market. His own father's story belies that narrative.

Anonymous said...

I'm not an Edwards supporter, and I'm definitely not his apologist, but I still think you're being pretty disingenuous.

You seem to be positing that Edwards cannot claim to represent blue collar America specifically because he and his family worked themselves out of a blue collar situation...

If that's the case then does that mean the only possible "authentic" candidates for blue collar America are people that are presently part of America's lower class working stiffs?

If so, then is the only acceptable candidate for the working class a write in vote for Harry Bridges or John L. Lewis?

Anonymous said...

Pat Rock,

I think you're missing the point. Edwards is trying to play this "see I'm one of you" game to get votes. Since when do we want to vote for someone who is just "one of us." I for one would like the president to be better than I. I don't want a blue collar guy as president. I don't want someone who was raised in poverty as president either. I want someone who is confident and a good leader. (among many other things) This whole populist routine is just garbage.

Anonymous said...

Assuming for a second that Edward's claims to a working class background are not just a shell game (again, I'm not his apologist) then I think we can say that where you see "garbage" others see a candidate who might have actual experiential knowledge of the problems they face on a daily basis.

Your statements, like Dr. Weatherly's, presuppose that there's nothing to his actual claim.

Anonymous said...

pat rock,

"Actual experiential knowledge of the problems I face on a daily basis," is not what I want in a president. If it were, I'd vote for Hillary since she has experience as a mother. But I don't want a president that has experienced my daily life, because I don't expect him or her to solve my daily problems. That is not the job of the president.

Jon A. Alfred E. Michael J. Wile E. SWNID said...

Chris is right from a SWNIDish POV. Edwards is playing populist identity politics, trying to create a biography that will compensate for his lack of governmental experience. He'd be better off playing his populism like Bobby Kennedy did. No Kennedy can claim to come from the roots of common America, so Bobby did the hard work and learned the actual concerns, experiences and vocabulary of the people whose support he sought.

If Edwards really wants to present himself as a man of the people, he'll have to do it that way to do it credibly.

Of course, in the end Edwards's anti-trade, pro-tax positions would damage the real populist cause more than his posturing. If you want to make poor people poorer, put the clamps down on the commercial development that will raise their standards of living.

Anonymous said...

@Chris, I'd say that it is one of the President's concerns to solve your problems to the degree that your problems are representative of a large group of peoples.

So the working class in this country certainly deserve a president who is concerned with their problems, and if he is experienced with it first hand then so much the better for the working class.

Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree?

Anonymous said...

@Dr. Weatherly:

Thanks Dr. Weatherly for engaging me on this, I know that you don't always respond to comments on your blog, so I appreciate your willingness to dialog.

"Chris is right from a SWNIDish POV. Edwards is playing populist identity politics, trying to create a biography that will compensate for his lack of governmental experience."

Again this presupposes a falsity about Edward's claims that I'm just not seeing.

Where you see "populist identity politics" I think Edwards sees and uses his background as a valid talking point that allows him to bring certain bona-fides to his rhetoric about class in America ie: his Two Americas speeches

Which is certainly not populist identity politics, but a very real problem in America.

You even identify something of this problem when you write:

"Further, Edwards's populism portrays the working man and woman as victims of a system that traps them in serfdom, which can only be broked by government intervention in the market. His own father's story belies that narrative."

His father's (or my father's, or your father's) story(s) do NOT belie this narrative. From a certain perspective their escape from poverty highlights the very exceptionality of that escape.

Escape from poverty is not the norm. It is the exception, which is why it is celebrated.

Edwards, in spite of his own success, rightfully recognizes that the reality in America is that ANYONE can be a success, but not EVERYONE can be.

Whether or not Edward's actual economic ideas could help them or not is another story.

And for the record I'm writing in John Maynard Keynes for president. ;-)

Anonymous said...

My remarks at the end might have been a bit confusing, let me clarify.

In a nutshell it is not readily apparent to me that Laisez-faire capitalism will ever erase real poverty in America.

It seems much more likely to me that we will always have a statistically significant portion of this country living in real poverty.

John Edwards seems to recognize this precisely because his (his family's) successes highlight the very exception to the rule that escaping poverty represents.

So, this doesn't seem so much like populist identity politics as much as being realistic...

But maybe that's just me...?

Anonymous said...

pat rock,

I see Edwards' childhood experience as the son of working class parents as irrelevant regardless of how true it might be. I look at him now and I don't like what I see in terms of his ability to be a good president.

Jon A. Alfred E. Michael J. Wile E. SWNID said...

Market capitalism will not erase economic inequality. However, its rising tide has certainly raised nearly all boats, revising every upward our notion of what poverty is. The poor are always with us, but they are less numerous and less desperately poor in a free market, industrialized, capitalist economy than elsewhere. To deny this is simply to ignore obvious facts. At what other time or place in history, for example, has there been a society in which one was more likely to be overweight if poor than if rich? Such are our times.

What Edwards offers will perhaps make a few poor people better off, but it will make a lot of poor and not so poor poorer. And he knows that, just as he knew as a trial lawyer that the costs of the settlements he won were passed on by corporations and insurance companies to other customers. That's what's fake about it.

We don't need to rehearse the hypocrisy of the Great Man taking a part-time consulting job for $400,000 with an investment company and then claiming that he did it to better understand the plight of the poor. We recommend reading Ruby Payne instead.