If you've come here looking for yet another dissection of last night's debate, or a hit piece on this or that candidate, I urge you to move on, because you've obviously landed in the wrong place. All the candidates - including those who have dropped out - have made policy statements that I very much like, that would, if implemented have positive results. All have taken stances that I think are myopic, narrow-minded, detrimental. All have failed to adequately address some of the major issues of our time. All have said and done things in this campaign that are, to be generous, disturbing.
No surprise that I should feel this way. As a Popular Front Democrat, a radical Democrat (both capital and small "d"), a pragmatic idealist, I have never seen a Democratic presidential candidate who could possibly fulfill all my political dreams. This has not driven me into the dead-end of third-party support. I'm an idealist, but I live in the real world, and the American landscape is littered with the bones and phantoms of third parties.
Both the idealist and realist in me recognizes that deep change is only confirmed, not initiated, by our elected leadership. It is pressed into existence from outside the electoral process, by what has only lately been called "people-powered politics," but which, in fact, is what it has always been, from the time of the Abolitionists. Suffragists knew this, trade unionists knew it, human rights activists know it. The way politics works in our country was well summed up in a timeless truth by something from their day, in Frederick Douglass's much-quoted: "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." That demand always has to be backed up with a wide range of political pressure. This has never been easy, but it has been increasingly hard to exert ever since Ronald Reagan stepped into the Oval Office.
In fact, the past 27 years have been pretty much a headlong dash into the "two Americas" that John Edwards so eloquently trashes nearly every time he speaks. We've made the demands. However, not only has power made few concessions during this period, it also has systematically - both overtly and surreptitiously - dismantled the policy legacy of the FDR era (which began 75 years ago this March). The powerful have provided few openings in which to expand on that legacy, which, truth be told, comprised only halfway measures, at best, weak social democratic tea, but all that could be brewed on this side of the Atlantic. It was, nevertheless, from the get-go too strong for many of the powers-that-be, and they got their chance to start their demolition when that old actor became their front man.
This process of demolishing both safety net and mindset hasn't been a straight line, of course. Counter-reform never is. But, for the most part, progressives (in all their subsets) have been, with a few exceptions, fighting a rearguard action since January 20, 1981. The past seven years have been especially hard because the consolidators for whom Mister Bush is now the front man gathered up all they had learned about screwing the populace and implementing their brand of authoritarianism and ran hard with it.
The Democratic congressional success at the polls in 2006 did next to nothing to put the brakes on, even in that arena which pushed the voters to provide the Democrats with such a clear electoral victory: Iraq. The question now is how much a Democratic presidential victory in November, combined with increased margins in Congress, will achieve. Not merely in stopping the dismantling of the remnants of past progressive gains, but in moving forward in a transformative way.
Two things for sure. No matter which Democrat wins, if one does, there will be no end of work ahead for those of us who form a kind of permanent internal opposition within the Democratic Party, we who clamor endlessly for positive change and against wimpiness in the face of challenges from the real power in this country. We won't get a breather. We're often sneered at for never being satisfied. Let me just say that we should wear that denigration as a badge of honor. Which does not mean we should put our energy into eternally opposing the good because it's not perfect, only that we should never stop demanding the better.
Which brings me back to John Edwards. If the views regarding the two Americas that he has relentlessly expressed in this campaign are ignored or openly rejected by whomever strides into the White House 12 months from now, a great opportunity to reverse the politics of oligarchy will have been lost, possibly for a generation. And it could be lost. Because, whether this makes you gleeful or depressed, it's clear that John Edwards will not be that whomever. It's actually been clear for months as several people electorally wiser than I have predicted on this very site.
Three questions remain. Does John Edwards enhance or weaken the chances that the message he has persistently delivered will be, in some part, turned into policy by staying in the race or dropping out? Martin Luther King III clearly believes he should stick it out.
Or would throwing his support toward another candidate be more likely to produce the results he wishes, perhaps even give him the vice presidential slot on the ticket, which would certainly reinforce his message during the general election campaign and, possibly, in a Democratic presidency? And, if he did endorse another candidate, would most of his supporters follow his lead?
Most assume, and have assumed since the December debate, that Edwards will endorse Senator Obama if he endorses anyone. But a few days ago - eons in campaign time, I know - Chris Bowers at OpenLeft offered a different scenario if Edwards's goal were really to help Obama.
As the arguments against Edwards begin to mount online, I want to point out something that should be obvious to Obama supporters, but which I have rarely seen mentioned. By staying in the campaign, Edwards is helping Obama in most states, particularly those with large African-American populations. Consider, for example, that Clinton would instantaneously pull even with Obama in South Carolina if Edwards were to drop out:
Meanwhile, on the Dem side, the poll has Obama with a nine-point lead over Clinton, 40%-31%. Just asking: With Obama way out in front of Clinton with African-American voters (56%-25%), but trailing both Clinton and Edwards among whites (39%-28%-20%), is South Carolina at least one contest where Edwards still being in the race actually helps Obama? It sure looks like Clinton and Edwards are splitting the white vote...
Obama is dominating Clinton among African-Americans nationwide, and even stronger in states where campaigning has actually taken place. Edwards draws very little of the African-American vote from Obama, but is competitive for white southern votes. This means that in states like South Carolina (Jan 26th) and Georgia (Feb 5th), Obama's lead is largely dependent on Edwards staying in the campaign. In Alabama, which will take place on February 5th, Obama leads Clinton 36%-34%. However, that lead would be gone if the 9% of voters who support Edwards, most of whom are white, have to choose only between Clinton and Obama. While there are no recent polls out of other February 5th states, like Kansas and Missouri, given the strength of Edwards in those two states, I imagine the situation is very similar. Further, while Obama's winning or losing in Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Tennessee is not dependent on Edwards staying in the campaign, for exactly the same reason I cited in the previously mentioned states, Obama's delegate totals from these other states will probably be better with Edwards in the campaign than with Edwards out of the campaign. In every case, Edwards will take a larger bite out of Clinton's advantage among white voters than he will from Obama's advantage among African-American voters.
With Hillary Clinton nudging ahead in Nevada, right now Edwards dropping out would be absolutely devastating to the Obama campaign. If Clinton won Nevada, and Edwards dropped out, Illinois and Georgia might be the only two remaining states where Obama would have an advantage. Barring a spectacular Clinton collapse, the campaign would be all but over. Clinton's advantage would be insurmountable.
I have no idea whether John Edwards, who obviously knows he will not get the nomination, is thinking in the terms that Bowers posits. He may well be ignoring these kind of machinations altogether and trying to figure out how best to corral his dwindling resources into keeping his message in the media after February 5. My concern is how we keep his message in the media and in the minds of those who will make our policies after January 20, 2009.
[UPDATE: I did not say and am not saying, suggesting, implying, hinting or otherwise indicating in any way whatsoever that I think John Edwards should drop out of the race or endorse any candidate.]