I promise not to make a habit of commenting on the Democratic primary process in the U.S., but I can't resist this morning a few observations about the outcome in Iowa. But first, a few prefatory words for the benefit of non-U.S. readers.
Of the "major" contenders for the Democratic nomination, only one would be considered a mainstream social democrat in, say, Canada or Germany: namely, Dennis Kucinich, the Ohio congressman. He got 1% of the vote in Iowa last night--which pretty much sums up the morally depraved state of America, but that's a topic for a different day.
The other major contenders are all to the right of Kucinich but are, by American standards, relatively liberal: that would be John Kerry (Senator from Massachussetts), John Edwards (Senator from North Carolina), Howard Dean (former Governor of Vermont), and Richard Gephardt (Congressman from Missouri). (The two Republican candidates for the Democratic nomination, Senator Lieberman from Connecticut and the retired General Clark, didn't compete in Iowa. Lieberman is clearly to the right of all the other candidates, Clark is a bit harder to pin down.)
Last night, as all U.S. readers will know, Kerry came in first in Iowa, Edwards second, Dean a distant third, and Gephardt a distant fourth. Gephardt is dropping out of the race, which is a blessing, since while his substantive positions were usually liberal ones (again, by American standards), as a leader of the Democratic party, he epitomized, along with Senator Daschle of South Dakota, mealy-mouthed spinelessness in the face of right-wing villainy. He's also an exceptionally dreary public speaker--though Kerry rivals him--so it's good to have him out of the race.
The really significant result from Iowa is the very strong second-place showing by Senator Edwards of North Carolina. Things have gotten so bad in the United States, that I'm now ready to vote for a Democrat, and Edwards has been and will be my choice (I'm hopeful this endorsement won't be widely noted by anyone other than a few academics and grad students, so as not to do damage to the Edwards campaign). Why Edwards? Two reasons:
(1) He's a liberal, in many ways, a principled liberal, which is remarkable considering the reactionary state he's from. Here is a man, a politican from the South, who voted against a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. That one gesture is, in itself, a rather good sign that he has some regard for the rule of law and liberty values. On domestic policy issues, he is, in most respects, to the left of the previous frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, Howard Dean. Alas, Edwards voted for war in Iraq, but so did most of the leading Democrats, except for the one who can't win (Kucinich) and the one who couldn't vote (Dean). But, needless to say, this is a "lesser of two evils" discussion, and since the other "evil" is off the charts, we're going to forgive Senator Edwards this vote.
(2) He's electable, rather clearly so. Consider first: for 40 years, the only Democrats to be elected President in the U.S. have been from the South (Johnson from Texas, Carter from Georgia, Clinton from Arkansas). All the non-Southerners have lost: Humphrey from Minnesota, McGovern from South Dakota, Mondale from Minnesota, Dukakakis from Massachussetts. Gore from Tennessee won the popular vote in 2000, despite being dreary and spineless. California and New York and a few others will vote for the Democrat whoever he is; but only a Southerner is going to carry some of the swing states in the South. Such is the petty psychology of people, but there it is, and we can't ignore it.
Consider second: Edwards is a good talker. You don't become a multimillionaire trial lawyer unless you're good at talking to regular people, the kinds who sit on juries. And Edwards clearly is. (This must surely have something to do with the strong showing in Iowa, despite being outspent by the other candidates quite substantially.) He will plainly wipe the floor with Bush in debates, but will do so in a likable way--that's part of the rhetorical skill of the good trial lawyer. That he comes from a genuinely working class background will also help, especially when it comes to deflecting the anti-trial lawyer smears the Republicans will mount. (Trial lawyers are all that stands between unregulated and otherwise unpunished corporate malfeasance and the ordinary people who are often its victims; Edwards will make that case.)
I was certainly sorry to see the stiff and patrician Kerry come out first in Iowa, but I suspect he'll fade quickly once the primaries move South. And an Edwards/Kerry ticket wouldn't be bad at the end of the day. (As the reader may infer, I'm of the view that Dean is probably not electable [see above], and while his willingness to speak plainly about right-wing villainy is welcome, he is not, overall, a gifted public speaker, and he is not, obviously, as progressive as Edwards on most domestic issues.)
So from the perspective of this inconsequential citizen in Austin, Texas, the results in Iowa are pretty good news.
Recent Comments