In The Name of Sincerity: Politics, Corporations, and… Revolution?
The Sincerity Question We Don’t Need to Ask
For the last seven years, we have been asking ourselves, “Does George W. Bush really believe the stuff he says.” For example, while campaigning for office, George W. Bush reportedly told a group of supporters in 1999, “I believe God wants me to be president.” In July of 2004, he re-asserted this faith, stating, “I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job.” When Bob Woodward asked Bush if he asked his father for advice regarding going to war with Iraq, Bush replied: “He is the wrong father to appeal to for advice. The wrong father to go to, to appeal to in terms of strength. There’s a higher Father that I appeal to.”
The sincerity question is beside the point when it comes to George W. Bush, however. Time and again, pundits have essentially defended the President by asserting their opinion that he actually believes that he is a vehicle of God’s will and that his connection with God is a reliable means of directing the course of our nation. The implied logic behind such defenses goes as follows. If Bush believes what he says, then he is not a corrupt and manipulative politician engaging in the worst kind of hypocrisy and abuse of the political process. Instead, he is a legitimate participant in the public debate regarding what is the best course for our democracy. Accordingly, his views must be taken seriously.
This defense is a distraction from the real issue. The real issue is that the policies Bush seeks to advance in the name of God are in direct conflict with our democratic principles. Because they are in direct conflict with our democratic principles they are in direct conflict with the interests of the American people. The harm these policies cause us is evident even without invoking democratic principles, but the point of invoking them is that doing so allows us to definitively establish that Bush’s point of view is NOT legitimately democratic. It may be voiced in a democratic political process, but it may not be approved by people who espouse a democratic worldview. Indeed, we who hold a democratic worldview have a duty to defend it by condemning the worldview Bush has been asserting in his exercise of political power.
We believe the president’s strength and power comes from the people. Whether the people express God’s will, we do not bother to determine. We don’t need to know. One thing is sure, however, we reject the idea that the president may put aside the will of the people in favor of his private hypothesis about what God wants him to do.
Of course, when a person claims to be a vehicle of God’s will, that doesn’t necessarily mean the person is aware of how God’s is using him. It doesn’t mean that God’s will is to use Bush as a vehicle for wisdom. If God speaks through George W. Bush, I would venture to guess that he does so in the same way he speaks through Hurricane Katrina. It’s definitely not something to run a campaign on: “Vote for me-God has appointed me to be a disaster of Class Five proportions!”
One more time, then, we must repeat, it doesn’t matter whether the idiot believes his own words; his words remain the height of idiocy.
Today, however, we are faced with another kind of sincerity question: the one posed by the presidential campaign of John Edwards.
The Sincerity Question That Actually Matters
Last week at a campaign stop in New Hampshire, John Edwards took a stand that sets him apart from every other politician running for president-if he really means it.
In a direct challenge to Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama, Edwards argued, “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….It’s time to end the game. It’s time to tell the big corporations and the lobbyists who have been running things for too long that their time is over.”
The distinction Edwards is drawing here needs our serious attention, and his.
Are we ready, all of us, to start looking at what makes a corporate politician and what makes an honest one? This is not a rhetorical distinction, but a factual one. It is an incredibly useful distinction too for anyone who cares about the integrity of our democratic political process, but it is only useful if it is applied to facts: What are the candidates’ different policy positions? Is the candidates’ conduct actually consistent with their positions? How are they running their campaigns? How are they funding their campaigns?
Presidential candidates are extremely sophisticated power players. If we are to usefully apply the distinction Edwards has defined as the rule the voters should apply in choosing the next president, our analysis of the facts surrounding their campaigns will also have to be extremely sophisticated.
To his credit, I do believe Edwards has articulated the correct rule. He deserves credit for doing this and the other candidates deserve to be criticized for missing what is frankly plainly obvious. Edwards at least qualifies to have the sincerity question asked about him. Like Bush, none of the others hold a perspective that is democratic enough to warrant questioning its sincerely.
Real Change
Edwards did more last week than simply articulate the standard by which all candidates should be judged in the next election-corporate or anti-corporate. Edwards also invoked the magical incantation: “real change.”
What does real change mean? I’ll give you one example: the American Revolution. That was real change. Are we talking about a revolution? I’m not talking about a violent revolution, but I do think a revolution is what real change requires.
There is a growing voice in America demanding to be heard. It is the voice that recites litanies of facts, anecdotes, and scholarly analyses explaining with exasperated passion that corporations have taken over our government and that our government is no longer democratic. These voices cry out that nothing is more serious than the loss of our government to corporate power and that we really must engage with this usurpation of our democracy as our highest priority.
When Edwards invokes the magical incantation, “Real Change,” we have to ask: Is he really prepared to pursue it? Does he understand what is required? Here’s what Edwards told us:
“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.”
Edwards has identified, here, the new king that rules over an America that has lost its democracy. That king he correctly calls “the established order.” If Edwards is serious about pursuing real change, he’s going to have to overturn that order, and that is the definition of a revolution.
In America, we patented a new kind of revolution way back in 1776. The patent’s description of this new technology of revolution had nothing in it about violence. The sole characteristic that made our type of revolution new and different from all that went before was this: instead of killing one king to appoint another, we replaced anti-democratic, authoritarian power with a democratic political process carefully engineered to retain lasting integrity. Unfortunately after neglecting this technology for 200 years, its integrity has worn out.
If Edwards plans to make his campaign about “Real Change,” he is going to have to raise political process integrity to the first place in his political agenda. He is going to have to champion an ambitious program to engineer from scratch a political process that can maintain its democratic integrity in the face of technology, corporate power, and global economics. We have the sophistication in our society to achieve this undertaking. We can design a political process that is virtually money-free, that improves the quality of wisdom in our political discourse, that encourages better candidates to participate, that is less immune to vote theft, vote suppression and vote fraud, and that tabulates election results in a way that more accurately reflects the will of the American people.
Our ability to engineer a better system is obvious, just as the usurpation of our government by corporate power is obvious. Edwards has had the guts to speak the obvious about corporate power. Now the question is whether he has the guts to speak the obvious about real change.
Hank Edson is an author, activist and attorney based in San Francisco. His blog, “MP3-My Politics and Progressive Perspective,” can be found at: http://hankedson.squarespace
Kucinich, Nader, Moyers, Sanders, and even some of the commenters or contributors at CD are more pure progressives and would make better presidents than any of the leading Dem candidates. But you go to an election with the electable candidates you have, rather than the electable candidates you wish you had.
For that reason, I believe it unwise to immediately dismiss Edwards if he offers to be a progressive vehicle, compromised as he is. Progressives should give him a chance and hold his feet to the fire with regard to any progressive promises he makes. At the least he should be expected to support policies to lower barriers for progressive candidates in the future (e.g. public financing), rather than raise them as a fascist Republican or DLC Hillary would do.
What most of us failed to realize is that the “higher father” to whom Bush referred was Dick Cheney.
Compromised he is. His health insurance plan keeps the insurers firmly in charge of our health care, with the financial burden, which in their hands has grown onerous, on us. Keeping the deductibles and copays in place as well as premiums.
The Conyers/Kucinich plan draws support from a variety of resources, such as cutting off loopholes in corporate taxes and a 1/2 of 1% tax on stock transactions, which will only seriously affect the market manipulators, not the small investors. Individuals would only pay a 3% tax increase (unless you’re rich, then it goes up to 10% for the top 1% of income), and nothing more for ALL medically necessary treatments as determined by your health care provider of choice. A no brainer for which plan would be better for us.
Hank Edson says
“John Edwards took a stand that sets him apart from every other politician running for president-if he really means it.”
I don’t see that he is the only one with this stance- Kucinich and Gravel both offer Real Change - even more so than Edwards.
Once again a writer, even one with the best of intentions, ignores the outsiders.
Bush is the angel of death and corruption. He is the man of a thousand lies and falsehoods thrown in your face. He manipulates and enables machination; he bullies and intimidates, while murdering and torturing. He is the lawless, the rogue, the enemy of the Constitution, of the Earth, of life, and of future generations. He is the corporatist, the greedy, the Philistine, the venal, the illegitimate, the bastard, the drunkard, the driver drunk under the influence, the convicted, the addict, the abuser, the abusive, the callous, the contemptor, the cynic…
I think that Edwards and Kucinich are correct in saying that our present politicians in Washington are bought and sold by corporate interests. The only problem that the Washington Democrats have recently had with this is that they were not the ones on power, and they were on the low end (by 2:1) on coporate contributions when compared to the Republicans. They have no desire to change anything except to regain control of the power. This explains why they cave so easily on efforts to end the war/occupation, or to reverse the illegal spying and wiretapping. They really don’t care any more about ending these things than the Republicans.
We need to deconstruct, just a little, what makes the presence of money so important in the first place. Hiring a large/paid campaign staff, expensive tailor, lawn signs, buttons, stickers, etc.
But probably the great majority of that money goes straight to the mainstream media for prime-time air time. It may well turn out that the problem isn’t so much money as it is the MSM, and the barrier they’ve laid out. They render people persona non grata from all polls, prime-time coverage, paid pundits and analysts, etc. You can’t even get negative air time without money.
Would Edwards incorporate We the People so we would have an administration that works for US instead of the Halliburtons?
While everyone keeps trying to figure out which Dem is lying the least, we got Dr. Ron Paul running - an OB/GYN, over 20 years in Congress and not a dime of corporate money nor pork voted for. He voted against the Patriot Act, the illegal invasion, and every other America-destroying piece of legislation. A man of solid integrity and character who’s being ignored and/or openly hated by the GOPathologicals and their neocrazy puppetmasters, and those calling themselves Dems and Progressives seem too wrapped up in their Blue v Red frame to look outside the box for a solid candidate that represents a true return to core American principals.
Anyone who is truly prepared to vote for the best man for the job regardless of party affiliation needs to evaluate ALL candidates honestly. None at the moment have even half the character of Congressman Dr. Ron Paul.
One of the problems is that a candidate who tells the truth does not get the campaign money from the corporations that allow him/her to run for President. Therefore, all the candidates are necessarily compromised. The two terms you don’t hear throughout the media are “corporate rule” and “class warfare”. Why? Because they are the metaphorical elephants in the room.
Edwards is willing to take a significant stand by calling them by what they are. That this one candidate is willing to take on the great corporate entities is enough to earn my vote. I am one of those liberals who has been so turned off by the corporate Democrats that at one point I actually contemplated (for only a second) not voting in this next election. So although I understand that “kivals” above might have a point, I would caution us all to be realistic and pragmatic about electing leaders. Just because a candidate doesn’t appear yet to have every issue correct is no reason not to support them. Remember, what Bush said and then what he did were opposites. Imagine that there may be one or two stealth candidates out there with liberal ideas of change. Getting one of them, a sincere one like Edwards, into the White House, should be our first order of business.
www.raycarlson.com
Progressive, anti-corporate Democrats should be judged by a single criteria: policies. Kucinich and Gravel advocate policies that are truly progressive, with those of Kucinich being much more thoroughly progressive and comprehensive in their coverage of key domains. Gravel’s electoral policies are more innovatively progressive.
John Edwards’ rhetoric about “corporate Democrats” is indeed progressive rhetoric, straight from the mouth of Ralph Nader. But unless and until his advocated policies also match up to the cooperative progressive worldview in the domestic, electoral and foreign policy domains, he is merely co-opting that which is truly “progressive” and undermining the other true progressives with some crafty deception. He is a corporate Trojan Horse. Look at the website of John Edwards. Look at his policies there. Look at his votes. Look at how he lives. His policies are not progressive. Not even close. His words are just slight-of-mouth.
The author of this article doesn’t get it. For he ignores the true progressives while he sells the corporate Trojan Horse.
I was a Kucinich supporter in ‘04; I even worked as a volunteer on his campaign. And I still have an immense amount of admiration for the courageous stands that he takes. He is the prophet of the Democratic Party.
But I agree with this article’s analysis. Edwards is a great progressive candidate–quite possibly the best progressive candidate who has been given a least something of a fighting chance in a very long time. Edwards has his flaws, to be sure (his health care plan especially, though it is certainly better than C’s or O’s, along with his initial support of the Iraq authorization). But he is as progressive as he can possibly be at this juncture and not be treated as a pariah by the media.
I don’t like it that Kucinich is marginalized, for his ideas are worthy. But Edwards gives us the chance to push towards real, substantive change. If we go get Edwards as President, we will be MUCH closer to achieving our goals than either O or C (or any of the GOP, of course). By all indications, he is also probably the most electable Democrat running, even including the marginalized candidates. So we have the perfect, enviable scenario of having someone who would likely be the most progressive President in my lifetime, and he is well-liked, even by people who get their news from the traditional media. Edwards’s progressive populist message is a breath of fresh air, in many respects an echo of Kucinich’s message in ‘04, but with the very exciting additional feature that is being taken seriously (just barely enough) to give him a fighting chance.
Is Edwards perfect? Certainly not. But if we progressives miss the chance to support him and help propel him forward, I believe will come to deeply regret our mistake.
I also agree with the author that Edwards about his sincerity. Yes, he is wealthy–and I am actually one of those people who is deeply suspicious of all wealth–but at least he came from the working class. He is making a sharp, principled critique of corporate power in Washington, and he is offering specific proposals which, though imperfect, can be used to hold him accountable for his progressive populist promises. He is our best shot right now.
Listion to what Edwards says, not what the corperate spin-misters tell you he says. And vote for what is good for the country,not whats good for the party. There is only one party CORPERATE PARTY.!!
Revolution, Yes!
And while we’re at it, we should make sure to conduct a special investigation into where all the billions of dollars have gone in the Iraq war? While our young soldiers are dying or being maimed in this illegal and immoral war, millions are being made by greedy war profiteers and money motivated opportunists. The Bush-Cheney backers have made millions on the blood-sacrifices of others over the past 7 years and we shouldn’t allow them to get away with their loot. Heads need to roll, and bank accounts of the war- mongers need to be investigated and the bloody war booty returned to the people it was stolen from, the American public and the Iraqi people. Revolution, yes, but lets be thorough while we’re at it, and completely eradicate the spector of greed that’s infected our Demoocratic ideals while we’re at it.
Christian-left and key89 make some very valid points. By dismissing Edwards as not “progressive enough,” we may be losing out on our only opportunity to elect someone who seems to actually understand how far down this country has journeyed into the abyss since GW & friends took over. I really like Dennis too; I just don’t think he’s electable, and that’s primarily because of money…the stuff you need to have to win an American election under the current rules (hopefully, that will change). We need to get behind a potential winner who is as close to our viewpoints as possible, and that I believe is Mr. Edwards. And, like it or not, he does have the money to make it happen. Additionally, he is now leading in the Iowa polls. He is hugely supportive of the labor and civil rights movements, and as Edson points out, was the only one to come out and talk pointedly about corporate Democrats. I don’t believe he is one.
Here’s another article that pretends Kucinich doesn’t exist. Who? Kucinich? Never heard of him! Now back to the candidates who really look good on TV! Edwards could be an anchorman! Hurrah! Hurrah! Edwards for anchorman! Or President! Or whatever!
Edward’s brings worthwhile platitudes
but Dennis Kucnich has been working for
these ideals since he was Boy Mayor.
What’s he in his 4th term in Congress?
He’s always done the right thing, check
the Congressional record. Not ‘electable’
pshh, he is if people vote for him.
We could call it the ‘Enlightenment 08′
Tell a friend. kucinich.us
It’s not how Kucinich looks, nor how Ron Paul voted. It’s about being heard, and paid attention to. Kucinich and Ron Paul both are sufficiently so far from center that the people don’t really believe their radical ideas will work. Edwards, however, has the creds that the people will think ‘yeah, he might accomplish something’. Some say he sold out, but I don’t see it that way. He’s much more Rooseveltian than most people give him credit for. As Roosevelt, the wealthy scion of economic royals, proved revolutionary, I think Edwards can. Edsen is right, we need a revolution, but Edwards — as unlikely as Washington — might just be the man to lead it.
I’ll make you a deal, vote for Dennis
in your primary and if Edwards gets
nominated we’ll both vote for him.
“Capitalism is admittedly an incredibly productive system that has created a flood of goods unlike anything the world has ever seen. It also is a system that is fundamentally (1) inhuman, (2) anti-democratic, and (3) unsustainable. Capitalism has given those of us in the First World lots of stuff (most of it of marginal or questionable value) in exchange for our souls, our hope for progressive politics, and the possibility of a decent future for children.
In short, either we change or we die — spiritually, politically, literally.”
Let’s go bait some consevatives, Dood.
Progressives shouldnt be arguing…
friendly banters fine but we need to
open minds and pursuade those handicapped,
truth wise. All we can do is present it
and hope for the best but at least we’re
advancing the agenda. Who’s up for it, we
could go en masse. foxnews.com anyone?
No, each of us just needs to enlighten about 5 new people. Best way is word-of-mouth, in person.
As a sales professional, I agree totally.
We need new blood though. It’s easy sitting
around here jerking each other off as
they say in a business enviroment with
progressive sentiments.
WE NEED NEW BUSINESS
Currently I’m volunteeringat Aloha
United Way, planting seeds withinthe
organization, building a relationship
with the union laiason trying to affect
change within a system. A local AFL-CIO
rep told me they won’t endorse a candidate
before the primary. I’m working within
the headquarter of the public sector in
Hawaii as a mole for Dennis.
Just to clarify, I’m a privateer mole.
He doesn’t answer my emails…
Well said Zimmerman
I’m sorry I didn’t introduce myself.
I’ve lurked for years. My name is
Clark but you can call papiowhisperer
because I’m a big game ultra lite
tackle catch and release jack trevally
fisherman. I’m friggin pissed.
Aloha
Peace/Out
Foxwizard,
You are mistaken about Kucinich’s policies. He is not extreme, “so far from center”. He is MAINSTREAM. It is just that the filter that mediates reality for most of us - the media, called so because it mediates - distorts and misrepresents reality.
You can look it up. Look at his policies, and then look at polls that ask people in the United States how they want their policies to look. Again and again, the people of the United States advocate policies very similar to those advocated by Kucinich.
For example, most US citizens express support for universal, government-sponsored health insurance. So does Kucinich. The media represents this as an extreme view, and represents candidates who support it as “so far from center”. This is because the media is biased toward corporate interests, who make boatloads of money from our horrific bloated corporate health care system. Corporations coincidentally own the media, and are major funders of political campaigns…
Please rethink your assessment of Kucinich. It is too bad to see such distortions here, among presumably progressive participants in Commn Dreams.
Well said Zimmerman.
It seems many American’s are fat and
happy with their families, cars,
home, dogs, Nascar races and glowing
reports of progress in Iraq from our
fearless leader. They don’t have
time to rock the boat, probably seeing
no reason to.
What they don’t see is their
civil liberties have been stolen,
c’mon we have no Habeus Corpus. What
they don’t see is the present day horror
of New Orleans and Mississippi, brave
dead young soldiers dead or crippled
for life coming home daily by the
multiple plane load, news coverage
of massive demonstrations.
What they don’t see that our current
government is broken and they are
America’s only hope to fix it. But
we’re dealing apathy.
So it’s up to good people like you and
I to plant seeds. Plant lot’s of seeds.
And do friendly follow ups.
EDIT
It seams many Americans are fat and
happy with their families, cars,
home, dogs, Nascar races and glowing
reports of progress in Iraq from our
fearless leader. They don’t have
time to rock the boat, probably seeing
no reason to.
What they don’t see is their
civil liberties have been stolen,
c’mon we have no Habeus Corpus. What
they don’t see is the present day horror
of New Orleans and Mississippi, brave
young soldiers dead or crippled
for life coming home daily by the
multiple plane load, news coverage
of massive demonstrations.
What they don’t see that our current
goverment is broken and they are
America’s only hope to fix it. But
we’re dealing with is apathy.
So it’s up to good people like you and
I to plant seeds. Plant lot’s of seeds.
And do friendly follow ups
I dare you all to bait in a friendly manner
your conservative influential boss’/co-workers
over lunch on your dime friday. I will.
Post images of your receipts in your
photobucket acct. Let’s rock it’s time
to mobilize.
Common Sense: Sometimes occurs after the excrement hits the fan.
Will the next president of the United States be someone who saw it coming, and told us so, or someone who was throwing excrement?
If we don’t raise a loud stink about the corruption and stink in Big Media and government, we’re gonna end up with the stinkiest choice for president.
Dennis Kucinich
is the safe and sane choice for president, but if we don’t somehow get that message to a majority, we’re gonna lose. Again.
If we don’t stand up to the Rabid Right, nobody will.
When you run across postings by ordinary people talking sense, email it to your friends, blogs and other websites, asking them to pass it on. You’d be amazed how fast thoughts passed on can travel.
.
Why does the progressive community always have to choose a white male? Carol Moseley Braun was more progressive than Kucinich, but she wasn’t even considered. Now Cynthia McKinney is looking at running for the Green Party. I’d sooner vote for her than Kucinich because she meets ALL the criteria I want in a president (and she’s good looking).
EVENINGLAND: For your quite apt description of Bush, that ANY thinking person allows this miscreant to get away with stating he is a vehicle of GOD begs the question I have asked repeatedly in this forum, “WHAT GOD do you speak for?” To invest in armaments while the poor are left to suffer and rot is HARDLY the recipe JESUS taught. Bush is under thrall to Mars, god of war and destruction and I, for, one, take him at his word that he indeed is a channel of this entity!
Marikken,
What DK not good looking…?
He’s laughing, his Darling
Elizabeth likes it.
I makes me shed tears of joy
visualizing them as a First
Couple.
rabblerowzer,
Word.
the price of complacency is slavery. slavery to corrupt values, to stolen freedoms, to bankrupt treasuries, and endless imperial wars that cost lives, unsustainable communities and economies, enslavement by unfeeling masters who steal crumbs from widows and orphans or imprison or kill them if they complain.
if Edwards call to act for change is compelling and sincere, and his courage be fortified, it is right for patriots to ask, what does his history say about the price of liberty? i hope my activist/attorney friend will accept as well-intended the observation that there are very few references to the words engineering and sophistication in the revolution topical index.
with admiration of Mr. Edson’s and Mr. Edwards bravery and eloquence, i submit that the actions of Mr. Edwards supporters must begin to speak louder than his words for his words to have the meaning he desires for them. he places his faith and fate in hands of the people. the people’s response reveals as much about our character as it does about his.