[Corp. Watch] Edwards slags corporations -- and the Dems who enable them

Corporation Watch corporation-watch at countercorp.org
Mon Aug 27 06:45:59 EDT 2007


Edwards Goes After the 'Corporate Democrats' -- Is This a Turning
Point for His Campaign?

By Joshua Holland

(AlterNet, Aug. 26) -- Last week, John Edwards fired a broadside
against corporate America and, more significantly, "corporate
Democrats," the likes of which hasn't been heard from a viable
candidate with national appeal in decades.

Edwards is 'en fuego' right now, and if he keeps up the heat, his
candidacy will either be widely embraced by the emerging progressive
movement or utterly annihilated by an entrenched establishment that
fears few things more than a telegenic populist with enough money to
mount a credible campaign.

"It's time to end the game," Edwards told a crowd in Hanover, New
Hampshire. "It's time to tell the big corporations and the lobbyists
who have been running things for too long that their time is over."
He exhorted Washington law-makers to "look the lobbyists in the eye
and just say no":


> Real change starts with being honest -- the system in Washington is

> rigged and our government is broken. It's rigged by greedy

> corporate powers to protect corporate profits. It's rigged by the

> very wealthy to ensure they become even wealthier. At the end of

> the day, it's rigged by all those who benefit from the established

> order of things. For them, more of the same means more money and

> more power. They'll do anything they can to keep things just the

> way they are -- not for the country, but for themselves.

>

> [The system is] controlled by big corporations, the lobbyists they

> hire to protect their bottom line and the politicians who curry

> their favor and carry their water. And it's perpetuated by a media

> that too often fawns over the establishment, but fails to seriously

> cover the challenges we face or the solutions being proposed. This

> is the game of American politics and in this game, the interests of

> regular Americans don't stand a chance.


It's a structural argument, and Edwards didn't pull punches in
calling out his fellow Democrats, saying: "We cannot replace a group
of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just
swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington
insiders of the other."

The rhetoric was a clear signal that Edwards is going to beat the
drums of reform as a contrast to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in
the primaries. About a third of the speech focused on the trade deals
that Bill Clinton championed, and Edwards' argument that those
"wedded to the past" can't provide the answers was a barely-veiled
rebuke of the Clintonian arm of the party, and the media's chosen
"front-runner" for the nomination.

If Democrats are engaged in an existential struggle between the
party's establishment and its grassroots, Edwards is obviously
betting that the grassroots' passion and energy will trump the
machine Democrats' message apparatus -- this was not a speech written
by the usual coterie of Beltway consultants.

The most striking aspect of Edwards' speech was his implicit
argument that class still exists. For years, both parties have
obscured the divisions that are so prominent in modern American
society, painting a picture of a country in which we're all part of
an entrepreneurial class with more or less similar interests -- a key
ingredient in the false "center" to which politicians and Beltway
pundits kow-tow.

"Let me tell you one thing I have learned from my experience,"
Edwards said last week. "You cannot deal with them on their terms.
You cannot play by their rules, sit at their table, or give them a
seat at yours. They will not give up their power -- you have to take
it from them."

It was an explicit rebuke of Obama's "new politics": Obama recently
told the Washington Post that "the insurance and drug companies can
have a seat at the table in our healthcare debate; they just can't
buy all the chairs."

Obama's approach to "cleaning up Washington" is not bad, but
ultimately tinkers around the edges of a corrupt legislative system.
Edwards, on the other hand, is not so conciliatory on the subject.

"For more than 20 years, Democrats have talked about universal
healthcare," he said. "And for more than 20 years, we've gotten
nowhere, because lobbyists for the big insurance companies, drug
companies, and HMOs spent millions to block real reform."

Contrast that naked confrontation of corporate power with the tepid
appeals to working Americans that were a trademark of John Kerry's
2004 campaign.

In announcing his candidacy, Kerry offered a bit of demagoguery
about CEOs -- he segued from bashing Cheney and Halliburton -- and
boldly promised to end tax breaks "that help companies move American
jobs overseas."

Also in his plan for corporate accountability: "No more contracts
for companies, no matter how well-connected they are, until they
decide to do what's right."

Hillary Clinton's economic proposals track with the thinking popular
among the ostensible "progressives" at the DLC and the Third Way --
policies that give Americans the "opportunity" to save for
retirement, a decidedly centrist approach to spiraling college costs
and other familiar policies from the 1990s.

She's not a fair trader or a free trader, she says: she's for "smart
trade" -- "pro-American" trade.

Edward's speech about the economy isn't the only time that he's
strayed from the bounds of "respectable" discourse in Washington. In
May, he said that the "war on terror" was a political "bumper
sticker" that the administration used to "justify everything [Bush]
does: the ongoing war in Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, spying on
Americans, torture."

Edwards isn't the only candidate in the race making such bold
statements, of course. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has long spoken of
economic issues in the kinds of terms Edwards used last week.

But John Edwards was the vice presidential nominee on a presidential
ticket that won 59 million votes and he's raised $23 million in the
current cycle (20 times what Kucinich has raised), which means that
corporate media is forced to cover him.

So far, they've mocked him, written stories about his haircuts,
pushed shadowy innuendo about his personal business dealings, and
suggested his focus on poverty is disingenuous or hypocritical, but
they simply can't write him off as a member of the fringe. Unlike
Kucinich, they can't ignore him.

John Edwards is becoming a very different kind of candidate, and his
growing message of empowerment and attack on the corporate class may
prove to be the most interesting story of campaign 2008.



More information about the Corporation-Watch mailing list