Populism? Regular People Won't Go For That!
EDWARDS'S PLAN FALLS ON DEAF EARS
In his latest update for the TNR Primary, Greg Easterbook argues that Edward's proposed tax cut and populist rhetoric are misguided. I think Easterbook is far too confident (just look at the title of his piece, he acts as if its a known fact that Edwards' plan has failed even though he's just announced it) in his belief that populism is a dead end. While he's right that Americans generally don't respond well to appeals to class and by and large don't go for the politics of envy, they also don't like getting screwed over. Edwards' isn't making a radical redistributionist attack on the inequaties of capitalism, but new policies that would benefit the wealthiest Americans. This is no trifling difference, while Americans might be accepting of the inequality created naturally by the free market system, I doubt they are all that keen on inequality generated by special interest manipulation of the government. Edwards' appeal is even more potent because of the current economic slowdown. While the first type of inequality is accepted because its viewed as a necessary component of economic growth and greater prosperity for all, the second kind of inequality can be attacked as a cause of the worsening economic situation.

The claim, made by Easterbook and many others, that Gore's "people versuses the powerful theme" doomed his campaign is also of the mark, Gore's populism might have been the principle reason why Gore was able to catch up with Bush (for those that care to remember, Gore's poll numbers went up significantly following his very populist acceptance speech at the Convention). The notion that populism doomed Gore is more the conventional wisdom of those generally hostile to populism than a matter of fact, another example of reality being molded by ideology.

And if were to have things Easterbook's way, how would we go about attacking Bush? To ignore the elitism of his policies his to overlook the elephant in the living room and one of the President's greatest weaknesses. Its more than likely that the Democrats' nominee will make populist appeals (unless of course, its Joe Lieberman, who will spend a lot of time being "civil" and boring most voters to death) and I think Edwards' populism is the best. By pushing to repeal Bush's tax cut and replace it with a middle class tax cut rather than new spending, like many others plan to do, Edwards insulates himself from charges that he's a "tax and spend liberal". So might argue that voters won't know the difference between Edwards' cuts and Bush's, but this can be corrected quite easily by constantly reminding the public that one tax cut is for them and the other is for much richer people. Another advantage to Edwards' approach is that he can convince the party's left leaning base that he is all right (something vitally important for any candidate that wishes to win the primaries) and because his tax cut is less "liberal" than the spending proposals of his peers, Edwards can also attract moderates, who will be essential for winning the general election. As a matter of fact, the New Republic's own blog points out the importance of doing just that.

So to get to the point: Edwards is the BEST CANDIDATE EVER!