Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWinning the Edwards Vote
John Edwards' exit from the presidential race puts his supporters up for grabs. Both Senators Clinton and Obama want those votes. Here's how to win them.
The central plank of the Edwards' campaign was restoring a prosperous and secure middle class, which requires ending wage stagnation and having wages again grow with productivity. This must be the central economic policy goal of any candidate wanting the Edwards vote.
The generation long rupture of the wage - productivity link reflects deep structural failings in the economy that must be corrected. Helping hand social policies, such as trade adjustment assistance and the earned income tax credit, are welcome but they are not adequate to the scale of the problem.
Having government try to remedy wage stagnation through after-tax income redistribution does not address the core problem of unfair before-tax incomes. A progressive tax system is critical for fairness, but it cannot ensure a prosperous middle class. That requires decent wages paid in return for a decent day's work.
The starting point for shared prosperity must be full employment, since only then do workers everywhere have the power to bargain increased wages that equal productivity growth. Monetary, fiscal, and exchange rate policy must work in coordinated fashion to this end. The best measure of full employment is when wages steadily rise with productivity.
Restoring the balance of power in labor markets is critical for wage bargaining. This requires labor law reform that ends employer intimidation preventing workers from joining unions and bargaining fair contracts, and government must vigorously enforce the law. The minimum wage must be reformed and tied to average wages so that it provides a true floor that rises as the economy grows. Unemployment insurance must also be reformed so that its duration is extended and coverage broadened.
Modernizing financial regulation is another needed measure. The housing bubble and sub-prime mortgage crisis show the financial system is broken. Today, the only instrument of control is the blunderbuss of Federal Reserve interest rate changes that inflict unemployment or inflation. New ideas exist and should be given space through a national financial markets reform commission that airs all views, and not just those of Wall Street.
The debate over fiscal responsibility must be redefined. That debate should be about containing healthcare inflation that threatens to bust the budget and funding needed public investment. It is time to break with conservatives' definition of fiscal responsibility that attacks government and seeks to cut essential programs like Social Security.
Public investment is critical. The economy sits on the edge of a recession and fiscal stimulus is needed to combat that danger. But beyond that, the country must invest in its future and fill the enormous investment gap resulting from a generation of neglect of public onfrastructure. Public investment in schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, and public transportation is enormously productive. It creates jobs and raises private sector productivity, the key to growth and an essential condition for a prosperous middle class.
Global warming presents new challenges that also call for public sector investment. Those challenges are an opportunity to create a 21st century green economy. To that end there is need for an Apollo-scale commitment promoting energy efficiency through new technologies, incentives for energy saving investments, and improved and subsidized public transportation.
Globalization means international economic policy is more important than ever. The trade deficit has hollowed manufacturing and must be reduced. Policy must put a stop to unfair international competition based on undervalued exchange rates, export subsidies, and unfair trade restrictions. America must also lead in the creation of a new international financial architecture that promotes fair and balanced trade, and only countries that truly join in this endeavor can be allowed full access to the America's markets.
Finally, there is need to tackle the problem of corporate governance and regulation. Corporations have been the major force rupturing the link between wages and productivity growth, and they have also been the major force driving globalization. That calls for a corporate reform agenda that addresses excessive CEO pay, restores shareholder control, and realigns business incentives so that corporations again serve the national interest as well their private interests.
John Edwards' campaign recognized the imminent challenge of recession and advocated fiscal stimulus. Both the Obama and Clinton campaigns have done likewise. However, it is not enough to just change the economic policy dial settings. The Edwards campaign also spoke to the need to change the long-term direction of the economy by restoring full employment, leveling the playing field between workers and corporations, and fixing unfair competition unleashed by globalization. That's the message that will win the Edwards vote.
Thomas Palley is founder of Economics for Democratic & Open Societies Project. Ron Blackwell is Chief Economist at the AFL-CIO.
32 Comments so far
Show AllThere is an online petition asking the DNC to choose the candidate with the most votes and delegates rather than take the chance on a secret backroom deal.
Please sign the petition and pass it on to your friends.
Petition http://www.petitiononline.com/Superdel/petition.html
C'mon, guys! (The guys who wrote this article.) You don't think Edwards' voters are going to ponder all that stuff before deciding whether they choose Hillary or Obama, do you?
If they wanted to vote for Edwards, then they didn't like Hillary. REALLY didn't like her. So a few idealistic Edwards' voters will vote Green Party, and most of the rest will vote for Obama. Americans just don't think as much about this kind of thing as you seem to think they do.
Here's how it really works (at least in my opinion):
With Jonathan Edwards, a sort of watered-down Kucinich, out of the picture, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are now competing for his voters. Hillary smiles and gets her hair done and puts on her good clothes and says a lot of things that don't really mean much. Obama does basically the same thing, although he doesn't have much hair.
Edwards' voters end up voting for Obama because they're political pragmatists who usually vote for the lesser of two evils, and Obama just isn't as evil as Hillary.
The End
If Edwards was honestly interested in Change, he would readily have endorsed Barak Obama and this would not be an issue.
The entire nation knows that Hillary Clinton is a candidate for Status Quo, Business as Usual. I am saddened that so many people, male and female are allowing their vote to be counted with the same old establishment crowd.
The baby boomers are the Now Generation with a desire to change the unfairness inherent in the tired old ideas of our grand parents. We wish to introduce bright new ideas that will better the lives of all, not just the few.
Edwards supporters are wise enough to see that there are really two americas in America. Barak Obama will afford the very ideas that Mr. Edwards supports. One America with fresh new ideas with the future generations in mind.
Change Truly Is The Engine Of Invention
Yep scroller, Hillary is simply too divisive and will garner exactly ZERO crossover or Indie votes. The DNC will nominate her at their own peril. When just shy of half the country says they will "never vote for her under any circumstances" you would think the dnc would listen...
New poll from Time just out:
Obama 48%, MCain 41%
Clinton 46%, McCain 46%
Another Edwards Democrat here (and campaign volunteer in NH). I hate to think Edwards is waiting to endorse Obama or Hillary based on what they offer as enticement. I'd like to think that he just can't stomach either of them (which is my case, ultimately). I'll vote for whichever is the nominee, rather than risk President McCain/VP Huckabee) but I'll have to hold my nose. I was of the opinion that having the Clintons back in the White House would be lovely irony, driving the right wing nuts crazy. But I fear Hillary would lose to McCain. Not that much more confident Obama can pull it off, but he does seem to have inspired more than a few people.
It should be obvious why Edwards hasn't endorsed anyone, because there are no worthy candidate running. I'm sure at some point he'll tow the party line, but it's certainly not a given that his supporters will follow. I wont. Obama and Clinton were unacceptable before and nothing has change.
So Edwards is about getting more money for the ones who have less. OK. Sure, give me money.
But what about:
A country being destroyed in the middle East?
How about a murderous Israeli proxy?
What about enforcing the law and imprisoning Bush?
What about drastically slashing the defense budget?
What about revealing the true history of the US and pushing to have it taught?
What about prosecuting the military officers for not upholding their constitutional duty to refuse to fight an illegal war like Watada did?
What about paramilitary forces in the US disarming citizens in New Orleans?
What about electoral fraud?
You want to get Edward's votes, say nothing controversial even if is right. Just promise the people you will try to get them more money. Typical.
Given our lack of choice: Obama and Kucinich as his running mate would be our best hope. Clinton is just too republican and trying too hard to be just as tough as a man.
Another disgusted white woman over 50.
Way back in 2000, Democrats said "Don't waste your vote on Nader." But I "wasted" my vote on Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.
Maybe it's time for this particular Edwards voter to "waste" his vote on somebody who actually talks about reality instead of just blathering slogans for the focus groups.
After "wasting" two votes on Democrats, maybe I'll "waste" the next one on Ralph Nader, even if I have to write in his name on the ballot.
There's no substitute for reality, no matter how much snake oil Obama and Clinton can sell to focus groups and all the other suckers.
How can you ask for "Full Employment", when our industrial base, under the Clintons with Nafta was shifted to China..Obama doesn't seem to have the # # # # s to raise the issue. He has yet to raise any issue. Is he naive? or just plain uneducated? Obama needs to spend some time working with the Blue Worker Classes to learn what is going on in this country. His wife makes more than $250,000 a year. He still wants to stay in Iraq and increase our Military. Sooooooooooo,,
what choice do we really have? Where is he different than the Billaries? The Democrats have a golden opportunity to take over the White house, but what good is it, if it is just
another round of the Clintonites.??
Let's not blame edwards, my second choice after kucinich,for whom my '92 toyota has worn his bumper sticker since '03, for not endorsing. on current issues there's much to condemn about some of both barack & hillary's positions.
but, there's 2 reasons why i shifted my passion to barack. one is the clintons' past. first, the lewinski affair (least important, but most important, did really suck). Then, can you say NAFTA, 1996 Tellecommunications Act, Welfare "reform", Star Wars, half a million children dead in iraq by the clinton sanctions (wh/madeline albright, a prominent hillary advisor, said was "worth it"), east timor(see democracy now), etc.
second is the inspirational force, a movement(the heritage of '68, King, Kennedy, McCarthy)
Remember, RFK was evolving. It didn't catch ahold enough w/Edwards, but has w/Obama! The Ithaca musicians that i love performed a fundraiser, & tompkins co. was the only one in nys state to go obama! my 22 yr old daughter, pbk, yet,despite my help, steeped in debt at boston university, stood in line for 3 hours to gain entrance to the 50,000 seat Seaport World Trade Center. i was wathing the rally on c-span when a little after 11, she called. She had stood 3 hours in line to get in. That rally, the LA rally, the st louis rally, etc are archivable on C-Span!
Even when I was for Edwards he had also shifted alot of his positions. The emotional spirit lies w/Barack. I love Kucinich to death. And, he and even edwards have enabled the whole discussion to move leftward (tho less than we'd wish).
I say the only hope of the MLK/RFK (before they were frickin offed) movement is Barack Obama. Of course, we must hold his feet to the fire. from what i have seen behind my syes, i think he will relish it!!
I still think by Edwards not endorsing he is acting like a contestant on 'The Bachelor'. For God sake, choose somebody!
No joking, if he doesn't plan on endorsing anyone I think that's fine. But there are other issues that differ between Hillary and Obama, I think enough that matter that he should make an endorsement.
If he doesn't soon, it's going to mean nothing.
pretty clever, neandersdl!!
Sign me up, sandramore! (actually I have signed up) I couldn't have explained my support for John any better than you just did. Thanks.
So Obama and Clinton want the support of John Edwards Democrats. That's nice. I don't blame them, we're a pretty hard-working, dedicated lot. But I doubt they're willing to do what it takes to get us. Because we didn't sign on with John Edwards because he's charismatic or good-looking, although he is both of those things.
We became supporters because he believes in the same things we do, some of which Mssrs. Blackwell and Palley have done a great job of discussing in this article. But there's more. John Edwards wanted to do something radical, he wanted to take back our government and our country. To take them back from the corporations who've so much money, power and influence that none of us, including Senator Edwards, can get a fair hearing.
Edwards Democrats - and we use that phrase intentionally - care about economic justice, fiscal responsibility, poverty, homelessness, veterans' issues, health care, globalization and all the rest.
But that's not all. We've had enough of having to vote for second best or for the lesser of evils. And many of us, frankly, won't do it anymore. For that reason almost half a million of us cast our ballots for him *after* he suspended his campaign, feeling that through continued support for him we could at least be true to ourselves. So, we will also fight for media reform, campaign finance and election reform, and the reform of our party.
I'm a proud Edwards Democrat. And so far I've seen nothing from Obama or Clinton to convince me that I should be anything else.
As of today, with Romney's departure from the race, the stakes just got a lot higher for where the Edwards voters are going...and how quickly they can get there.
Republicans TODAY have started the general election campaign and Democrats must join it ASAP. We could (in our dreams) wish Mrs. Clinton would drop out to save the party and country from division--as Romney claimed in his exit speech. Somehow I doubt she'll be that patriotic, and I don't think she'll knuckle under to being VP either. Unlike Romney, though, she does not have unlimited personal money to "loan" to her campaign.
The first $5 million may be all she and Bill will put in, and underfunding "might" swamp her soon.
McCain will most likey name Huckabee as running mate before very long. We need the Edwards people to get on board with Obama and like yesterday. BTW, why doesn't John Edwards, himself, ask them to do that?
I teach consumer protection and antitrust law, two areas of law that have been gutted (in addition to labor law) in the years since Reagan came to office. Antitrust law, in particular, has become a toothless tiger and allows for the creation of the corporate behemoths with power and resources that far exceed many nations of the world. So many areas need complete restructuring, just to get back to where we used to be....
But at least these two authors have started a well-rounded discussion of the depth of the problems in our economy.
Edwards gave voice to the need for real change for working people. I hope he works to keep his passionate followers united and active.
Edwards got it, albeit rather recently.
These guys, Tom & Ron get it.
And we're all "getting it" now, the shaft that is.
However, nothing will change as long as the "elites" are running congress.
Sorry to point this out to anyone not already "in the know," but Obama & Clinton both vote like the elitists they are. If we look at his record, John Edwards did too. So why the support? He sounded like he was changing his tune.
I may not like what he says all the time, but at least John McCain doesn't speak with a forked tongue, and getting more of the same from him wouldn't be as much of a surprise as voting for unknowns like Obama & knowns like Clinton could be for all those expecting miraculous change. Don't be fooled. The mega-corporations are running the show and they didn't want Edwards. That's why he came in "a disappointing third" in Iowa, instead of just plain third (and I'm talking about you, CBS' Charles Gibson) or second, as the vote tally (had your puppet masters waited until more than 2 precints reported) actually indicated.
Messrs. Palley and Blackwell do a fine job of listing succinctly all the economic changes needed to restore the American Dream to the middle class and to working-class families aspiring to become middle class. All the economic changes, that is, except one.
You would never know from reading this article that at least 12 million people are here uninvited, surreptitiously adding to the workforce and driving down wages and opportunities for Americans and legal immigrants. Ironically, the authors say, "The starting point for shared prosperity must be FULL EMPLOYMENT (emphasis mine), since only then do workers everywhere have the power to bargain increased wages that equal productivity growth." Right.
Since we are FAR from having full employment, will someone please explain how we're going to create 10-12 million new jobs to offset the ones currently held by illegal immigrants, and then create another 10-12 million jobs for the next wave rolling over the southern border? After all, as good progressives, we can't take the "racist/xenophobic" position that available jobs should go to citizens and legal immigrants first.
I am completely baffled by the overwhelming Latino support for Clinton - given NAFTA and the heartaches it has caused, both here and south of the border.
The same goes for unions, given her actions or lack thereof as a director of Wal-Mart for many years- particularly during the time the wages were so substandard that employees qualified for welfare and medi-caid at the taxpayers expense instead of any benefits.
We get the leaders we deserve.
The subversive and socialistic viewpoint expressed in this article is a direct threat to the Reich. This Edwards fellow and all those who would disseminate such visions of empowerment to the general populace must be marginalized at all costs.
Oh, wait ...
Editing function didn't work. I meant to say it's hard not to be impressed with Obama's intellect and charisma.
Now, I'd like to be impressed with his policy positions, his advisors and his likely agenda.
I proudly voted for Edwards in Mass. on Tues. I am also proud that he has not endorsed anyone yet. The reality is that neither candidate has a real claim to advancing economic justice issues. Clinton, despite all her backing from unions and working class voters, has been solid centrist/DLC history and amazing corporate backing. Obama, too, has hired center-right economic advisors and has substantial corporate backing. It will take alot more than nice word to convince me that either of them will take on corporate power, which has such a strangle hold on economic policy making in the US.
It's hard not to be impressed with Obama' intellect and charisma. If he could only dump his corporate advisors in favor of some true populists, I would be much more impressed.
I hope Edwards continues to wait, to see if any of their deeds matches their words.
Karita - we CA democrats were not well informed that an Edwards vote on 2/5 would add to the winner count of each congressional district. Since Clinton was likely to get higher district %, an Edwards vote likely went to her Delegate count that day. John Nichols reports that Edwards got > 450,000 votes nationwide, > 200,000 in CA on 2/6/08. I share your pain. I felt queasy voting for Obama. We Edwards people in CA got screwed.
Right on the mark. Mr. Palley has identified the fundamentally, really transforming, ways economic issues must be addressed in any campaign that will get my support.
I voted for John Edwards on Super Tuesday, because only he espoused the kind of goals that Mr. Palley identified here. Change talk doesn't cut it for me. Actions and real programs do. I am tired of voting for second best. We Edwards Democrats intend to be a force for change, fundamental change, in the Party!
Replacing their corporatiss with ours is not enough.
Proud Edwards Democrat,
Karita Hummer
San Jose, CA
Apparently the authors will be voting Green then, since there's no Demos in sight that can even be remotely expected to embrace the platform as they lay it out. Certainly not the two corporate shills Our Masters have presented us with. Same as the old boss...
The fact that he didn't endorse Hilbilly or Bam Bam means that Edwards still has at least a trace of integrity.
Please, California has already voted and us previous Edwardians have had to make a choice. I choose Obama, both with my vote and with my $ (not huge $, but considering I am a direct decendent of Ebenezer Scrooge, he's lucky I didn't send his campaign an I.O.U...)
I first choose Edwards and then Obama...why hasn't Edwards made a choice in endorsing one of our candidates? It makes him look unprincipled and like a high school tease, holding out for the best 'deal' before he'll commit. I'm starting to be ashamed that I was taken in by him.
The Clintons worked hard for NAFTA and can hardly be counted on to try and alleviate some of its disasterous consequences although she could start giving it lip service simply for votes as she is doing on Iraq.
When will the voters wake up? It seems that a Super Bowl victory or a World Series championship is much more important than the welfare of the community. O.K. Let's build a couple of new stadiums with tax money from the General Funds, spend $400 for a kids bat , tell your kids how MUCH more important sports are than Politics and we won't have too wait much longer to go the rest of the way down the toilet.
After NAFTA, it's hard for Mrs. Clinton to be very credible on reversing unfair labor competition unleashed by globalization. Yet the unions MAY believe in her more than Obama. I'm inclined to think that you'll actually get more of the real results toward John Edwards' vision with Obama. He has the potential, anyway, for more substance over form (and less vulnerability to election-turning attacks from the "right") and I'm hoping former Edwards voters will head there.