Full Version: Edwards on populist theme 2
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071230/ap_po/...ds_ap_interview
In Edwards Iowa campaign he drove home the idea (reality) that
America is governed by corporate politicians, which is the best thing
I have heard from Edwards or any DEM / Rep candidate. This message
has brought Edwards from 3rd place to a tie for the DEMS!
And as this article states (At the end of the first paragraph) some body or
organization is saying that this message is "Divisive" .............
I want to know who is saying it's divisive?
(Maybe some other corporate politicians?)
How can this message be divisive for any American party?
(Dem or Rep)
I have taken the liberty of putting this in the form of debate questions.
1. I want to know who is saying it's divisive?
(Maybe some other corporate politicians?)
Yes, the linked article just talks about mysterious "criticism" without naming any source. One can only speculate. Everybody else running for President is probably going to call just about any meaningful political statement "divisive" because they want to be "uniters." In reality, of course, to be any kind of meaningful politician at all you have to be divisive; you can't be all things to all people.
Beyond his fellow candidates, Edwards is probably being criticized by some corporate interests, who are doing well under present circumstances, and who don't want things to change. He may also be facing criticism from other Democrats who realize that any candidate with a hope of being elected needs a lot of money; and the best source for a lot of money is business organizations. It's a risky game he's playing. Any candidate can win a great deal of support by playing the populist card. (I am starting to think that the "average" American, if there is any such thing, is more of a populist than a liberal, conservative, or libertarian.) He can also lose a lot of support if his populism doesn't allow for a lot of support for business. If Edwards can maintain a very tricky balance, he may turn out to be more of a viable candidate than I thought he was.
2. How can this message be divisive for any American party?
(Dem or Rep)
Well, it's certainly divisive for any GOP candidate, since business interests are one of the three legs that support the Republican platform. (The others being social conservatives and hawks.) We actually see a little bit of this with Republican candidates like Mike Huckabee, who combines strong social conservatism and a hawkish foreign policy with a spending and government involvement in
public welfare policy which some have called "liberal."
Link
It make sense that libertarians would oppose any populist candidate, since these two political philosophies are exact opposites.
Populism can also be divisive within the Democratic Party, in ways which may be a little more subtle. It divides Edwards from "Blue Dog" Democrats and the Democratic Leadership Council, as well as from libertarian-oriented Democrats.
Link
The definition says it all. Although it is true that Edwards was (and is, as far as I know) a member of the Senate New Democratic Caucus, associated with the DLC, his political positions seem to be turning away from that philosophy and more towards populism.
It's an interesting development, since the Republican Party has had a great deal of success by emphasizing the religious and patriotic side of populism, while the governmental and economic side of populism, more appropriate to the Democratic Party, hasn't had much of a voice in the public square lately. Maybe it's getting louder.
1. I want to know who is saying it's divisive?
(Maybe some other corporate politicians?)
Yes, the linked article just talks about mysterious "criticism" without naming any source. One can only speculate. Everybody else running for President is probably going to call just about any meaningful political statement "divisive" because they want to be "uniters." In reality, of course, to be any kind of meaningful politician at all you have to be divisive; you can't be all things to all people.
Beyond his fellow candidates, Edwards is probably being criticized by some corporate interests, who are doing well under present circumstances, and who don't want things to change. He may also be facing criticism from other Democrats who realize that any candidate with a hope of being elected needs a lot of money; and the best source for a lot of money is business organizations. It's a risky game he's playing. Any candidate can win a great deal of support by playing the populist card. (I am starting to think that the "average" American, if there is any such thing, is more of a populist than a liberal, conservative, or libertarian.) He can also lose a lot of support if his populism doesn't allow for a lot of support for business. If Edwards can maintain a very tricky balance, he may turn out to be more of a viable candidate than I thought he was.
2. How can this message be divisive for any American party?
(Dem or Rep)
Well, it's certainly divisive for any GOP candidate, since business interests are one of the three legs that support the Republican platform. (The others being social conservatives and hawks.) We actually see a little bit of this with Republican candidates like Mike Huckabee, who combines strong social conservatism and a hawkish foreign policy with a spending and government involvement in
public welfare policy which some have called "liberal."
Link
QUOTE
The Club for Growth accuse Huckabee of being a liberal in disguise, saying Huckabee increased state spending 65.3 percent (1996–2004) and supported five tax increases. . . . The Cato Institute, a libertarian non-profit public policy research foundation, gave Huckabee an "F" for spending and tax policy in 2006.
It make sense that libertarians would oppose any populist candidate, since these two political philosophies are exact opposites.
Populism can also be divisive within the Democratic Party, in ways which may be a little more subtle. It divides Edwards from "Blue Dog" Democrats and the Democratic Leadership Council, as well as from libertarian-oriented Democrats.
Link
QUOTE
The Democratic Leadership Council is a non-profit corporation that argues that the United States Democratic Party should shift away from traditionally populist positions.
The definition says it all. Although it is true that Edwards was (and is, as far as I know) a member of the Senate New Democratic Caucus, associated with the DLC, his political positions seem to be turning away from that philosophy and more towards populism.
It's an interesting development, since the Republican Party has had a great deal of success by emphasizing the religious and patriotic side of populism, while the governmental and economic side of populism, more appropriate to the Democratic Party, hasn't had much of a voice in the public square lately. Maybe it's getting louder.
I want to know who is saying it's divisive?
(Maybe some other corporate politicians?)
How can this message be divisive for any American party?
(Dem or Rep)
Well, try the National Review for one:
Critical National Review Article
National Review Editors and Contributors
Edwards does talk of the US being made up of two nations, which is immediately divisive. You've got the rich and the poor, the employed and the unemployed or underemployed, the owners and the renters, the insured and the uninsured, the debtors and creditors, and it can be split up in a bunch of other ways too.
This kind of talk scares the dickens out of the, um, let's think of a non-divisive label for them. The people who read the National Review and agree with its editorial stance -- lengthy, but not divisive. It acknowledges that some homeless guy might pick up a National Review while warming up in the local public library.
Expect to hear plenty of criticism coming from certain well-known truthy outlets in the coming year. It'll be an interesting debate, and if Edwards is indeed coming up in the polls, it'll go nationwide. Seems that the focus might be on health care. It might also be on corporate crooks if that comes up again. People are still hurting from the telecom meltdown of the early 21st century. People still remember the energy policies that led to the California crisis too. Corporate crockery (pun intended) is also being tied to Iraq.
The AP article linked to in the opening post mentions that Edwards is worth between 12.8 and 60 million USD. To me that's rich, but to the corporate world that's nothing. You're not rich unless you have at least a billion, which is $1,000,000,000.
Well. What's the federal minimum wage these days?
$5.85
A million bucks (current USD) then represents 170,940 hours of labor.
math: $1,000.000 / $5.85 per hour = 170,940 hours
In 1979 with a federal minimum wage of $2.90 an hour, a million bucks (adjusted for inflation) represented 115,498 hours of labor.
math: $334,945 / $2.90 per hour = 115,498 hours.
So today it takes 170,940 - 115,498 = 55,442 more hours to make a million bucks on the federal minimum wage.
That's 1,386 40-hour weeks longer.
Or 26.6 years.
Inflation Calculator
Minimum Wage History (PDF)
(Maybe some other corporate politicians?)
How can this message be divisive for any American party?
(Dem or Rep)
Well, try the National Review for one:
Critical National Review Article
National Review Editors and Contributors
Edwards does talk of the US being made up of two nations, which is immediately divisive. You've got the rich and the poor, the employed and the unemployed or underemployed, the owners and the renters, the insured and the uninsured, the debtors and creditors, and it can be split up in a bunch of other ways too.
This kind of talk scares the dickens out of the, um, let's think of a non-divisive label for them. The people who read the National Review and agree with its editorial stance -- lengthy, but not divisive. It acknowledges that some homeless guy might pick up a National Review while warming up in the local public library.
Expect to hear plenty of criticism coming from certain well-known truthy outlets in the coming year. It'll be an interesting debate, and if Edwards is indeed coming up in the polls, it'll go nationwide. Seems that the focus might be on health care. It might also be on corporate crooks if that comes up again. People are still hurting from the telecom meltdown of the early 21st century. People still remember the energy policies that led to the California crisis too. Corporate crockery (pun intended) is also being tied to Iraq.
The AP article linked to in the opening post mentions that Edwards is worth between 12.8 and 60 million USD. To me that's rich, but to the corporate world that's nothing. You're not rich unless you have at least a billion, which is $1,000,000,000.
Well. What's the federal minimum wage these days?
$5.85
A million bucks (current USD) then represents 170,940 hours of labor.
math: $1,000.000 / $5.85 per hour = 170,940 hours
In 1979 with a federal minimum wage of $2.90 an hour, a million bucks (adjusted for inflation) represented 115,498 hours of labor.
math: $334,945 / $2.90 per hour = 115,498 hours.
So today it takes 170,940 - 115,498 = 55,442 more hours to make a million bucks on the federal minimum wage.
That's 1,386 40-hour weeks longer.
Or 26.6 years.
Inflation Calculator
Minimum Wage History (PDF)
QUOTE
And as this article states (At the end of the first paragraph) some body or
organization is saying that this message is "Divisive" .............
organization is saying that this message is "Divisive" .............
"Divisive" means it's bad for them, and not you.
QUOTE
I want to know who is saying it's divisive?
(Maybe some other corporate politicians?)
(Maybe some other corporate politicians?)
Yes, and don't forget about corporate shill writers like Rich Lowry..
This bit got me:
QUOTE
This is a worldview that doesn't allow for legitimate differences of opinion.
And in our present system, how is a legitimate difference of opinion reflected?
What, if you don't like your $900.00 a month health insurance plan, you can change it for another $900.00 insurance plan? 
Oh I get it, if your $45,000 a year job is outsourced, you simply live high on the hog at $6.50 an hour with no benefits. 
People like Edwards wouldn't have such a great case for populist change if the private sector wouldn't serve those issues on a platter. 
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Dec 31 2007, 12:34 PM) 
I want to know who is saying it's divisive?
(Maybe some other corporate politicians?)
How can this message be divisive for any American party?
(Dem or Rep)
Well, try the National Review for one:
Critical National Review Article
National Review Editors and Contributors
(Maybe some other corporate politicians?)
How can this message be divisive for any American party?
(Dem or Rep)
Well, try the National Review for one:
Critical National Review Article
National Review Editors and Contributors
As I was following your links I came across this web page. It sums up what I see that has
happen to the masses of Americans (Mainly REPS&DEMS) form a Marketing/Advertising
point of view.
http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/06/04/1..._your_money.htm
Thanks for the links.
Today I saw Edwards on CNN w/Wolf B. Wolf said Nader gave his backing to Edwards and
asked if Edwards would try to bring Nader in to his campaign. Edwards said no, but it was
an interesting idea.
QUOTE
Thanks for the links.
Today I saw Edwards on CNN w/Wolf B. Wolf said Nader gave his backing to Edwards and
asked if Edwards would try to bring Nader in to his campaign. Edwards said no, but it was
an interesting idea.
Today I saw Edwards on CNN w/Wolf B. Wolf said Nader gave his backing to Edwards and
asked if Edwards would try to bring Nader in to his campaign. Edwards said no, but it was
an interesting idea.
Nader would be perfect for a cabinet position. Put him in charge of consumer product safety, who else would be more qualified? The problem occurs when you have a tool-lackey corporate mouth piece who wants "voluntary" standards for anything and everything. That guarantees that they will run the show and get away with murder....literally.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.