There Is No Joy In Mudville: Bai on Edwards

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 07:36:14 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Matt Bai, in the Sunday Times Magazine, writes about the John Edwards campaign:

And yet, even taking that personal ordeal into account, there is something surprisingly arduous, even joyless at times, about Edwards’s second bid for the White House. Modern presidential campaigns tend to be aggressively upbeat and personality-driven; sure, every candidate has his favorite issues, but those issues generally exist mostly to color the candidate’s driving ambition with some shade of higher purpose. Edwards’s campaign feels oddly inverted. There’s no doubt he wants very badly to win, and yet there are times when the entire campaign seems little more than an excuse for him to talk about the issue with which he is now most closely identified: the case for the 37 million Americans living in poverty.

I think Matt Bai should realize that a normal person can feel no real joy with the current state of America.

Bai's piece delves into the numbers but seems oddly disconnected from what the American People are feeling. Fully 75% of the country thinks we are on the wrong track.

Matt Bai can't seem to get his head around what Al Gore has been talking about and what John Edwards is saying:

When I saw him for the first time since his 2004 presidential campaign, at a Chapel Hill cafe in January 2006, he seemed to me a changed man — liberated, self-assured, a little defiant. “I saw the difference in the way people responded to me when I was talking from here,” he told me that day, patting his heart, “and not from here.” He raised a finger to his head. “Just being myself and standing up for what I believe, and not being coached and not being consulted, is what it’s all about.” He derided all the “phoniness” in Washington and talked about the scores of poor neighborhoods he had been visiting on his own. “With just a few breaks the other way, I would be sitting where these people are right now,” he told me. “I know it sounds corny, but when I can’t sleep at night, I get these pictures in my head of all the people I’ve met. I wonder what more I should be doing.”

The cynical Beltway mentality Bai seems to exhibit is symptomatic of all of the Washington Elite. Don't get me wrong. Bai has written an informed piece and it will take a careful reading to absorb some of the arguments (and yes, he is making arguments in this piece, though often putting the arguments in the mouths of those he quotes) he makes. But what comes through to me is a writer so utterly detached and separated from what America outside the Beltway is feeling that his article falls quite flat to me.

I want to read it more carefully because I am trying to get a real handle on what Edwards is about now. But, so far, I find that the attitude of Matt Bai is standing in the way. I will perservere nonetheless - because it seems an important article about a leading Presidential candidate that discusses important issues.

And in today's world of political reporting, that is a breath of fresh air.

< Presidential Nonsupport | The Upcoming Iraq Discussion >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

There Is No Joy In Mudville: Bai on Edwards | 23 comments (23 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

My Take (5.00 / 4) (#7)
by mmeo on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 10:20:07 PM EST

on Bai on Edwards is, here is another fact-challenged pinhead dupe of a pundit giving us the usual personalization instead of reasoned discourse.

This is some more of what Al Gore told us was happening. Let us recognize it for what it is.

Edwards actually cares about an issue, and that means he's unqualified to be President. That is crap.

It is the reporter who is unqualified for his job since he is not reporting the issues; he is penning an evidence-free hatchet job.

The way to eradicate poverty (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Alien Abductee on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 02:38:59 AM EST

and create a more egalitarian society is through steeply progressive tax rates aimed at redistribution of income, with an economic floor below which no one is allowed to drop. What Edwards is advocating will nibble a bit at the worst edges of poverty through some structural adjustment, but the howls against even that little bit will be savage and apocalyptic. Maybe he sees the battle ahead for its hopelessness, the immense effort involved, and just in order to move the mountain an inch.

While he talks incessantly about economic injustice, Edwards isn't proposing anything -- beyond an oil-company windfall tax, which Hillary Clinton has also embraced -- that would strike a serious blow against multinational corporations or the top tier of American earners.
Even in his rhetoric, Edwards seems to deliberately avoid stoking resentments or pitting one class against another the way a true populist would

Of course he doesn't. Perhaps his "sprawling plan to eradicate poverty" doesn't inspire much belief, even in himself.

Now, Romer said, we are embarking on the next great challenge in American economics: mitigating inequality.
The main economic debate in Democratic Washington revolves around how to do this.

This seems premature. 75% of Americans are uneasy about the direction of the country, but that's not the same as willingness to do major economic tinkering. For heavens sake, 57% are in favor of making the Bush tax cuts permanent, because paying less in taxes can only be a good thing, right?

In a sense, I think an approach like Obama is taking is necessary first. He's working at a vision level, trying to change the narrative. But his problem is that his vision seems to involve understanding and not doing. It stirs the emotions but then doesn't really take you anywhere. Bill Clinton's speech to the Harvard graduating class this week (video) was more like about what needs to change first:

Is poverty and the fact that 130 million kids never go to school and all this disease that I work on a problem? You bet it is. But I believe the most important problem is the way people think about it and each other, and themselves. The world is awash today in political, religious, almost psychological conflicts, which require us to divide up and demonize people who aren't us. And every one of them in one way or the other is premised on a very simple idea. That our differences are more important than our common humanity. I would argue that Mother Teresa was asked here, Bono was asked here, and Martin Luther King was asked here because this class believed that they were people who thought our common humanity was more important than our differences...
But you have to decide how to think about all this and what to do with your own life in terms of what you really think. I hope that you will share Martin Luther King's dream, embrace Mandela's spirit of reconciliation, support Bono's concern for the poor and follow Mother Teresa's life into some active service. Ordinary people have more power to do public good than ever before because of the rise of non-governmental organizations, because of the global media culture, because of the Internet, which gives people of modest means the power, if they all agree, to change the world...
All over the world we have people who know that they can do things to change, but again, I will say to all of you, there is no challenge we face, no barrier to having your grandchildren here on this beautiful site 50 years from now, more profound than the ideological and emotional divide which continues to demean our common life and undermine our ability to solve our common problems. The simple idea that our differences are more important than our common humanity...
So I say that to you, do we have all these other problems? Is Darfur a tragedy? Do I wish America would adopt sensible climate change regulation? Do I hate the fact that ideologues in the government doctored scientific reports? Do I disagree with a thousand things that are going on? Absolutely. But it all flows from the idea that we can violate elemental standards of learning and knowledge and reason and even the humanity of our fellow human beings because our differences matter more. That's what makes you worship power over purpose. Our differences matter more...
The great temptation for all of you is to believe that the one-tenth of one percent of you which is different and which brought you here and which can bring you great riches or whatever else you want, is really the sum of who you are and that you deserve your good fate, and others deserve their bad one. That is the trap into which you must not fall. Warren Buffett's just about to give away 99 percent of his money because he said most of it he made because of where he was born and when he was born. It was a lucky accident. And his work was rewarded in this time and place more richly than the work of teachers and police officers and nurses and doctors and people who cared for those who deserve to be cared for. So he's just going to give it away. And still with less than one percent left, have more than he could ever spend. Because he realizes that it wasn't all due to the one-tenth of one percent, and that his common humanity requires him to give money to those for whom it will mean much more...
In the central highlands in Africa where I work, when people meet each other walking, nearly nobody rides, and people meet each other walking on the trails, and one person says hello, how are you, good morning, the answer is not I'm fine, how are you. The answer translated into English is this: I see you. Think of that. I see you. How many people do all of us pass every day that we never see? You know, we all haul out of here, somebody's going to come in here and fold up 20-something thousand chairs. And clean off whatever mess we leave here. And get ready for tomorrow and then after tomorrow, someone will have to fix that. Many of those people feel that no one ever sees them....

When people believe that and are prepared to act on it, maybe it'll be time for Edwards' plan. Change has to come at the level of the individual belief system first. The belief in ruthless individual selfishness as a creator of order and efficiency and rude justice on a societal level is still way too operative.

As for the strange tone of the article, I think it's that postmodern thinking is seeping into the political sphere with a vengeance now, undermining and mocking and hollowing out all the traditional pieties in a particularly insidious way. For Bush it's meant embracing control of the narrative, lack of concern with truth and facts, emphasis on appearances and a marketer's version of reality. For Edwards it's this hyperawareness of his own story and the need to both use it and undermine it to be authentic.

Unfortunately for him, it gets neatly skewered here by Bai undermining the undermining. For Edwards the haircut and the big house are maybe not so bad in and of themselves, he could have gotten past them, but what they seem to have done is made him too sensitive to his own image, too aware of himself, and knocked him off being able to immerse himself in his simple good convictions in the way a good salesman has to be able to do. Fatal, it would seem.

right (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by cpinva on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 06:15:55 AM EST

god forbid a candidate should actually discuss serious issues, in a serious manner, with some dumbass pundit, who's only concern is where the next shrimp n dip party is. no, that "pundit" is more concerned with how the candidate "feels", or what the candidate is wearing, or how much he/she spent on his/her last haircut. you know, the important stuff that will impact the country.

perhaps, and this is going out on a limb here (and why not, mr. bai does so throughout his column), mr. edwards recognizes just how difficult campaigning is these days, with maroons like bai, dowd and rich wasting scarce column inches on his clothes and hair, instead of on actual important stuff.

hell, any reasonable person, confronted with the present-day chattering class, would have to be almost completely oblivious, or drug addled, to not have exactly the same reaction.

I'm not sure Bai knows what Bai thinks (5.00 / 3) (#15)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 10:10:42 AM EST

Maybe I am wrong, but I think Bai is more conflicted than Edwards. I don't think Bai is fact challegned in the sense that say, Bush is. Rather Bai is challenged by the facts in that he hasn't figured out how to assimllate coherently as to what it means.

There is also the problem of the artificial construct of "predistribution Democrats". WTF is not quite appropriate. I know what what he is getting at, but the phrase "Predistribution" is nonsense at worst and inadequate at best.

Also this group is not anti-trade. That is too broad a brush struck to the point of being a lie. What they are is anti-complete laissez faire trade/capitalism (or if you prefer, Anti E Coli Conservatives) and (like being anti-the Iraq debacle) who with a brain isn't.

The alleged "hypocrisy" of haircuts and houses is absurd. Historically we have never demanded populist presidents take a vow of poverty. See Jefferson, TR, FDR or even JFK and RFK. Americans (and certainly not the segment of Americans known as Democrats) are not levellers. The real faux populists as almost always are the GOP candidates, including the latest darling, Fred "phony red truck driver" Thompson.

I think the real problem with Edwards (and I consider myself an Edwards supporter) is that the biggest issue is energy policy, not poverty. Marry that issue to Edwards' pet issue and I think you have something. I think Edward's background as a plaintiff's lawyer means poverty speaks more to his heart. One thing that seems to come through is that Edwards cares about people (call me naive) and I don't get that sense from the other candidates from either party.

Matt's trying to have it both ways (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by MontanaMaven on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 12:52:51 PM EST

The piece is a bit bi-polar and says more about the author than it does about Edwards. I'll be interestd on your take, BTD. The whole piece smacks of "concern trollishness" or a subtle hit piece. Edwards is an optimist. So am I, but we're not Pollyannas. We have to identify the problems in order to fix them. Edwards whole campaign this time around is taking his natural optimism and his concern for regular Joe and Jean Q Public and putting an urgency behind the ways to fix things. It's the old "pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will" that people like Bill Moyers operate under and so does Edwards. His policy statements are full of detail and good ideas, but Bai dismisses them as small. Come on, nobody would be talking about single payer healthcare finally being an option if Edwards hadn't pushed the envelope on universal heathcare.
What insiders can't seem to understand about Edwards is that he didn't make himself up. He didn't grow up wanting to be President. He was, in a way, called to it. He reminds me of the old idea of the citizen statesman who is asked to put down his plow and serve his country by entering public service. Hey, he was a textile technology major.
Bai talks about "modern presidential campaigns", but Edwards for me harks back to the Democrats of the 1960's and early '70's who stood for something other than free market bullcrap. They stood for things rather than being "in it to win it". Gravel is one of those kind of Democrats and that's his appeal.
When you hear Ben Mankowitz say on "The Young Turks" that nobody is starving and everybody's got running water so poverty is not an issue, you scratch your head. Because in our little town, the local church serves 85 meals a day to WORKING poor folks and 20% of the high school kids qualify for subsidized meals. Hello! You don't judge yourself by Nigeria. You judge yourself by your opportunity to get out of poverty here. That's what the American dream was supposed to be. That the color of your skin or who your parents are did not determine your lot in life.

In England the party chooses it's message and its values, then it chooses a person to lead the charge. Edwards with the grass and netroots is working on the white horse of true liberalism not Republican lite. When the horse is ready, hopefully, we will be smart enough to choose Edwards to ride it.

Matt's trying to make Edwards the next Eeyore democrat like Gore. But he's not Gore. He shares Gore's concerns. They both are very serious men. But one's an extravert and one's an intravert. They'd make a good team. As donkeys go, Edwards is much more like Donkey in Shrek than Eeyore, Bai's take notwithstanding.

: That comment by Ban Mankovitz (none / 0) (#20)
by okamichan13 on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 07:54:32 PM EST

is pretty revolting. I helped outtoday at the food bank in Wash DC. They serve 600,000 people in the Dc area that don't get enough food. Comments like those by Mankovitz are fantasy comments that dont reflect reality.

I think Bai is remarking upon Edwards's supposed (4.00 / 1) (#2)
by Geekesque on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 08:30:52 PM EST

lack of enthusiasm for the prospect of doing all of the other things it takes to be president.

Obviously, no one clicks their heels with delight when thinking about where this country has gone in the past 6-30 years.

All the other things it takes to (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 08:33:54 PM EST

RUN for President. An entirely different thing.

Think for example, of Barack Obama's disdain for "partisan politics."

The flip side of the coin G.


Semantics. (none / 0) (#6)
by Geekesque on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 08:58:20 PM EST

In order to be president, you've got to run for president.


: Which is exactly what Edwards is doing (5.00 / 4) (#14)
by okamichan13 on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 08:42:38 AM EST

I don't think anyone has ever come from an Edwards event thinking he runs a "joyless" campaign.
Edwards is working his ass off.

Wrong track? (none / 0) (#1)
by Slado on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 08:28:13 PM EST

While I agree we have problems they are the same problems all western societies have, have had and will always have.

Your sense for the dramatic is a sign of your dislike for this current administration not reality.

Is a democratic congress not solving these problems? Will a democratic president solve them or are you simply exagerating (ala Al Gore) the state of affairs for the partisan reasons.

Will these problems suddenly dissaper if Clinton becomes president and did they suddenly appear when Bush did?

What is the public at large supposed to say when the media talks about embending natural disasters from GW and an economic doom that don't exist.

I guess it's the conservative in me. While I love to complain it is only because I want my country to be better. Not because I think it is in a state of disaster.

My sense is shared by 75% of America (5.00 / 5) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 08:32:42 PM EST

does that worry you at all?


: Sure (none / 0) (#5)
by Slado on Fri Jun 08, 2007 at 08:49:54 PM EST

Not really. I think it's a half full half empty debate.
I can relate however. I thought the world was ending when Clinton was president and it wasn't.
I think the war is a real problem and needs to be fixed, we disagree on the solution, but all in all we're in good shape but that doesn't mean we should not do anything to try and make the country better.
IMHO the party that doesn't control the presidency and it's supporters tend to exagerate the state of affairs.
I speak from experience.
I may think differently in 2 years :-)

This is humor? (none / 0) (#9)
by ding7777 on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 04:04:16 AM EST

Re: Edwards' latest "raise some dough" funding raising video help him?

It shows two of Edwards campaign workers unsuccessfully trying to make Edwards a birthday pie.

How does the wasting of food help Edwards' message of caring about 37 million people living in poverty? Or help getting more money from his working class supporters who can't afford to waste either food or money?

: This comment (none / 0) (#17)
by littafi on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 10:19:39 AM EST

is quite silly.
"Wasting food"?
Clean off your plate or you will not be allowed ot make change in the world. Right.

It could be Dickensian England (none / 0) (#10)
by Stewieeeee on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 04:04:20 AM EST

America won't vote for a debbie downer.

this was actually a valid criticism of hillary until she's been able to remake herself as someone who enjoys campaigning.

and of course this was the big dawg's best trait.

he LOVED, dearly LOVED, he could never think of anything else he'd rather do than campaign for a public office. holding public office was a let down to him, a secondary experience compared to the actual campaign.

morrissey has a loyal following. and morrissey's a beautiful poet. but his following is not comprehensive across multiple demographics.

: I forgot (none / 0) (#11)
by Stewieeeee on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 04:05:04 AM EST

Kerry hated campaigning too.
It showed.

Edwards runs an inspired campaign (none / 0) (#13)
by okamichan13 on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 08:40:16 AM EST

I think that's very obvious to anyone who's ever been to one of his events or listened to his speeches. The "joyless, plodding on to campaign" image that Bai seeks to create, that some posters here seem to buy into, just isn't the reality of how Edwards presents himself or his message. He's not preaching doom and gloom, he's preaching change.

check him out at the DNC Winter meeting and see how "joyless" he is:

http://johnedwards.com/media/video/dnc-meeting/

In fact Matt's own admission that the Edwards campaign isn't about harsh class warfare, seems to undermine his take on the campaign. Is Edwards bummed about Katrina? Is he bummed about how far America needs to go? Of course he is. But that doesnt mean he's resigned to those facts. Matt also says that Edwards seems changed, more confident, more assured and free than 2004.

The New York (none / 0) (#16)
by littafi on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 10:17:27 AM EST

Times is all about class privilege and educational elitism. It is left of center, but not very left. Those who have much have discomfort when it is suggested that it may be a rigged game.

Good post, BTD.

Hey, I saw Rich compared you to Rush Limbaugh. It's nice to be noticed. That he felt the need to try to marginalize you and other left wing blogger's voices suggest that what you are doing is having an impact. Keep it up.

wealth of nations (none / 0) (#19)
by Sumner on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 01:32:02 PM EST

"An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics." -- Plutarch, Source Unknown

Warmed Over (none / 0) (#21)
by Dulcinea on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 10:31:33 AM EST

Edwards is coming across to me as petulant this time around. When he ran as VP, I approved of his optimism but find it missing in his presidential run. It has never been news to me in my long life that there are two Americas. Edwards seems to have just recognized the fact and, because of that, feels he deserves to be president.

: Where exactly do you get this from? (none / 0) (#22)
by okamichan13 on Sun Jun 10, 2007 at 02:05:40 PM EST

"Edwards seems to have just recognized the fact and, because of that, feels he deserves to be president"
just recognized? I think the two Americas is a big part of why he went to law school in the first place.

Ben (none / 0) (#23)
by corey on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 04:32:38 AM EST

Maybe this is one reason why he is no longer on The Young Turks....

Corey Mondello
Boston, Massachusetts

cpmondello@yahoo.com

www.CoreyMondello.com
11-24-07

"....if by a liberal they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, their civil liberties.. if that is what they mean by a "liberal" then I am proud to be a liberal. " ~ John F. Kennedy