Some plucky Edwards 2008 staffer can reference this the next time his or her boss wants to know why people who agree with John Edwards substantively still view him warily.
Here’s what John Edwards says in public on this stump:
The choice we must make is as important as it is clear.
It is a choice between looking back and looking forward.
A choice between the way we’ve always done it and the way we could do it if we dared.
A choice between corporate power and the power of democracy.
Between a corrupt and corroded system and a government that works for us again.
It is caution versus courage. Old versus new. Calculation versus principle.
It is the establishment elites versus the American people….
It’s time to end the game…. It’s time to challenge politicians to put the American people’s interests ahead of their own calculated political interests.
Here’s what John Edwards does out of the public eye:
The [Michigan] state Senate estimates that a primary, for both parties, would draw more than 2 million voters to the polls.
It estimates that a caucus, on the other hand, might draw just 100,000 Democrats and, incredibly, just 4,000 to 6,000 Republicans.
That’s obviously just a fraction of the state’s eligible voters, of whom 4.8 million voted in the 2004 presidential race.
Now ask yourself, why on earth would a state consider doing something like holding a caucus, which would severely limit the number of people who might vote?
…
Those backing former Senator John Edwards prefer a caucus. Why? Mr. Edwards’s campaign manager is David Bonior, the former Michigan Congressmen, who has strong ties to organized labor. The unions can be highly influential in a caucus, which depends largely on ground organization. They would have much more control over a caucus, which is too complicated and time-consuming for the average person to attend.
Yeah, calculation versus principle, end the game, power of democracy, the American people, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
You talk a good game. But your talk doesn’t match what you do. I just don’t trust you, John Edwards.
You forgot to paste the the part of the article that says a primary election would favor a candidate with big money–which Clinton has tons of–in order to get out the first-time voters. Also the cost to the public of primary elections.
I don’t have any problem with organized labor.
Yeah, democracy is expensive, isn’t it?
So you’re saying if you take a big pile of money and use it to get votes on election day–and the Clintons know how to get out the black vote like this in Arkansas–basically from people who were never interested in politics before that day and have not studied the issues, this is democracy.
But if you take another group of people, say people like me who belong to a union like AFSCME, and that union makes a study of political issues and shares a common vision about economics and the shrinking middle class, and if that union influences the party’s choice of candidate through a caucus, then that is NOT democracy?
Nice round of the “put the words in the mouth” game.
I’m saying that when you have caucus systems that force people to sit around for hours and then make public affirmations in groups, the process is less democratic and more corporate, in the broadest sense of that word. I’m saying that the Edwards campaign is pushing this system while stating in a public speech that he was for democracy and not corporate politics. I’m saying that John Edwards is favoring this system because of calculated political interests over principle, which is exactly what he said he was against in a speech yesterday.
I’ve participated in a Democratic Party caucus, and I saw quite clearly how that system favors power brokers and stifles dissent when it’s most needed.
To suggest that unions somehow represent “corporate power” is a real stretch.
Not that organized labor hasn’t had its problems, but I don’t see how the ‘wisdom of the masses’ bought and paid for on election day is more representative of “democracy” than working through a union. I also don’t see that “calculated political interests” are automatically unprinicipled. The democratic party has too often acted like squabbling in public is okay, while the republican party quietly gets its ducks in a row and wins the election. There is nothing wrong with tactics. There is nothing wrong with a system that favors people who work through their groups based on employment rather than popular appeal to individuals who have not bothered to inform themselves on the issues and are merely trucked to the polls by someone with money on election day.
These points are not “games”. If you have to insult someone to “defend” your own points, can your points be very strong? Can you for once consider an idea that you didn’t think of yourself without getting defensive?
I’m not getting defensive. I’m pointing out that you put words in my mouth.
Corporate in the broadest sense of the word. Think about what that might mean.
And thanks for clarifying that you favor union-based elections over broader population-based elections.
Gosh, “thinking about what that might mean” sounds awfully close to an invitation to “put words into your mouth”. If I did that, you would probably fuss like an old aunt.
And no, I haven’t said what I might favor. I have participated in both caucus and primary election systems and I do have an emotional bias towards one over the other, but I would prefer that someone with actual solid reasons might be able to express some of them. Rupert is correct that caucuses can be used in negative ways, but so can the primary system. But it’s a pretty big jump to go from there to saying that anyone whose campaign manager favors a certain type of nomination process is automatically untrustworthy.
That’s not what I said. Reconsider.
Let me say this again:
1) are there any solid reasons for not liking caucuses and/or unions
2) can someone share these reasons with us
I really don’t understand what you’re talking about, Jim, when you say caucuses “force people to sit around for hours and then make public affirmations in groups”. Don’t caucuses just basically elect delegates, presumably delegates who are committed to support a particular candidate or slate at a convention? The caucuses are open to certain people, like party members or voters (the DFL party I caucused with was open to anyone who would be eligible to vote in the upcoming election). How is this not democratic?
Something tells me JClifford has some strong ideas about this subject, steeped as he is in local politics.