Shorter JC: "If I massively over-analyze a stump speech metaphor, I can set up for a lame (and old) _tu quoque_ on Edwards, and thereby pretend to have actually addressed his critique of the current systemic inequalities in the economy."

phil, I didn't over-analyze him. That's precisely what he's explicitly said, and exactly the theme of his campaign.

Edwards has made a career out of condemning the lifestyles of the rich (and famous)? That's news to me. I always understood his stump speech to be a rant against members of his own economic class benefitting more than others -- some might say, at the expense of others -- under the Bush administration's policies.

Just like that other great traitor to his class did, FDR. Since none of us were around at the time, I guess the question is rhetorical, but I wonder if his Republican detractors at the time went on about Hyde Park the way that the right is currently going on about Edwards' "lavish and luxurious home."

Now that I think about it --I was young at the time I know -- but I don't recall any right-wing criticism of the Kennedy compound while RFK was touring the country decrying the other, poverty-stricken America he found.

I guess times change.

I always understood his stump speech to be a rant against members of his own economic class benefitting more than others -- some might say, at the expense of others -- under the Bush administration's policies.

Well to be specific, John Edwards is saying that it's at the expense of others.

While there may be some slight analogy to FDR here, the rhetoric seems to be different. FDR focused on using tax dollars to fund work for the poor, but Edwards focuses just as much on how the rich got rich - as you say, at the expense of others.

I'm glad that someone brought up both FDR and RFK as examples of exactly what it is that Edwards represents. The most effective criticism of any class comes from the class itself, and that includes the gilded class.

Championing the case of the less fortunate does not require one to be an aesthete themselves, nor is one forbidden from commenting on the condition of the overclass if one is oneself a member.

As for "FDR focus[ing] on using tax dollars to fund work for the poor," Joshua shows an appalling ignorance of FDR's rhetoric. His wasn't a pragmatic rhetoric of providing opportunity where none had existed as it was a withering critique of his own class and the means by which they ascended to that class and held on.

The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.

The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group,

No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.

The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson.

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace-business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionism, war profiteering. They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hatred for me - and I welcome their hatred. I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second administration that in it these forces met their master.

I think Edwards is very much, and in very fine form, following in FDR's footsteps.

Whoa, "appalling ignorance"? I must disagree. You and I can both say "blue", but I can say it louder and with more frequency. In such a case I would be much more of a "blue" advocate than you, even if you said blue a number of times.

Championing the case of the less fortunate does not require one to be an aesthete themselves, nor is one forbidden from commenting on the condition of the overclass if one is oneself a member.

With this I would typically agree. But in John Edwards' case it is more than disingenuous to criticize the manner with which one gains riches while simultaneously taking that path.

But in John Edwards' case it is more than disingenuous to criticize the manner with which one gains riches while simultaneously taking that path.

Which might be a valid point, if that's what Edwards was doing.

But it's not.

But it is.

"It's not rich versus poor in his mind; it's the greedy versus the rest of us." - John Edwards advisor Dave "Mudcat" Saunders

"Our economy, our people, and our nation have been undermined by the crony capitalists who believe that success is all about working the angles, working the phones, and rigging the game, instead of hard work, innovation and frugality."
- John Edwards

"One America that does the work, another that reaps the reward."

Sure sounds to me like Edwards was saying the rich have not rightfully earned their wealth. Of course, he can clarify and say he was only speaking of those wealthy people who in fact do exploit the less fortunate, but then his "Two Americas" rhetoric quickly begins to fall apart.

Yes, as Eric notes, his very thesis to each stump speech says it all.

Oops. Josh beat me to the post. Now, those other two Edwards quotes allow him to categorize himself as someone who got rich "the honest, hard-working way." But they don't really support the "Two Americas" paradigm. In the speech, he specifically defined the "America that "does the work" as middle-class.

Sure sounds to me like Edwards was saying the rich have not rightfully earned their wealth.

Sounds to me like Edwards was saying that the Bush Administration has enabled the rich to keep more of their rightfully earned/accumulated wealth than the rest of us.

Jeez, there is a very strong smell of fried baloney in here...

The difference between FDR and Edwards is that the FDR quotes do not make the kind of claim that makes Edwards deserving of this criticism. Edwards' quote implies (to the extent that it does not explicitly state) that the distinctions between his "two Americas" are sharp and generally accurate, and that the citizens of the "rich" America do not deserve what they have. The purpose of making the distinction is defeated unless it is stark and requires few exceptions.

Some of the FDR quotes do, as Edwards did, state that the government is controlled by rich people (which is not the topic of this post), but FDR did not criticize or describe rich people as a class (or as an "America"). Instead, when he criticized people who are rich, he referred to "organized money" and "financial interests," or other, specific groups of rich people, defined by their behavior instead of their wealth alone. These categories probably would not have included FDR, even without an exception. In contrast, Edwards' language divides America into only two categories, rich and non-rich, and makes broad, critical descriptions of one of the categories. Edwards then either either decided that he is a rare exception or is happy to spend money that he thinks was earned by someone else.

Edwards could have limited himself to a critique of "current systematic inequalities in the economy," but he decided that he could be more persuasive (and more likely to win the primary and general elections) if he encouraged anger and envy by making blanket statements about whether the "rich" deserve what they have. The underlying objection to all of this is that before Edwards made those blanket statements in 2004, he should have considered that he is not the rare exception that he thinks he is.

Sounds to me like Edwards was saying that the Bush Administration has enabled the rich to keep more of their rightfully earned/accumulated wealth than the rest of us.

It says more than that, whether he actually believes it or not, to say that one America does the work and the other gets the reward. The fact that that sentence was probably a reference to the Bush tax cuts does not give it the same meaning as your more measured, more accurate statement about the Bush tax cuts, even though his beliefs are probably closer to your version than to what he said. He said what he said, not what he could more responsibly have said.

He said what he said, not what he could more responsibly have said.

Wow.

Our economy, our people, and our nation have been undermined by the crony capitalists who believe that success is all about working the angles, working the phones, and rigging the game, instead of hard work, innovation and frugality.

I really fail to see how this is an indictment of the rich v. the poor and not an indictment of the corrupt v. virtuous.

You're altogether hung up far too much on Edwards' statements regarding wealth (or your interpretation of such) and far too little interested in his statements regarding inequality.

Edwards' didn't invent the "two Americas." We've internalized and externalized the tension between the haves and have-nots ever since we became aware that there was another half that we might see how they live.

Since then politicians have aligned themselves with either camp, either the "rich," not all of whom are undeserving of their material wealth, though an uncomfortably large percentage are.

And the "poor," not all of whom are innocent of their own station in life, though an uncomfortably large percentage are.

Edwards, like the Kennedys before him, and like FDR is a populist politician of comfortable means. Unlike the Kennedys, and unlike FDR, Edwards at least came from inauspicious circumstances and made his fortune the uncommon way, by earning it.

But like the Kennedys, and like FDR, Edwards is honest enough to be able to survey society and, instead of the hyper-individualists who insist that their wealth is a function of them, and them alone, is honest enough to say "there but for the grace of God, go I."

Karl

It might be helpful to consider the part of the sentence that Mr. Edwards is being criticized for including in his "Two Americas" stump speech in the context of the entire paragraph in which it resides.

"Today, under George W. Bush, there are two Americas, not one: One America that does the work, another that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks. One America - middle-class America - whose needs Washington has long forgotten, another America - narrow-interest America - whose every wish is Washington's command. One America that is struggling to get by, another America that can buy anything it wants, even a Congress and a president."

I think Mr Edwards makes it fairly clear that he is referring to the Bush tax cuts. Warren Buffet has made some of the same points about them, but in a less stump-speechy way.

And I don't think hurling shop-worn accusations that Mr. Edwards was/is trying to foment "class warfare" is gonna fly again this time, except in desperater (sic), wingier climes.

A nice house in such a dreary setting. Bleah. Chernobyl doesn't look that bleak. Somebody call the landscapers.

The house and the red barn are like queso and Coca-Cola - both are nice separately, but you just don't mix the two.

On issues of real importance...

"It's not rich versus poor in his mind; it's the greedy versus the rest of us."

I agree, in that it's the greedy public sector versus the rest of us.

One America that does the work, another that reaps the reward.

Some would say that the nonworkers reaping rewards are the public sector.

One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks.

All America pays the taxes, direct and indirect. Lots of "Americas" - from the poor to weirdo artists to Enron to big agribusiness - get goodies in the form of tax breaks and direct subsidies.

One America - middle-class America - whose needs Washington has long forgotten, another America - narrow-interest America -

Trial lawyers are among those narrow interests, dude. Those who live in glass houses...

whose every wish is Washington's command.

If all special interest groups supported the same agenda that might be true. But this is the US of A, not Cuba.

One America that is struggling to get by, another America that can buy anything it wants, even a Congress and a president.

Politicians and those who would buy them aren't any more monolithic than special interests. And the rich can't always get what they want from the government - the richest man in Redmond, WA couldn't buy an end to the Janet Reno's antitrust crusade.

JohnS,

It is more important whether it is true than whether it will "fly." His words attempt to convince Americans that many Americans are very different from them, that these Americans are privileged and undeserving of what they have, and that these people are favored by Bush at everyone else's expense, but will be opposed by Edwards. This class of people is largely defined by their receipt of the Bush tax cuts, and would be affected by their repeal. Attempting to persuade Americans that the people affected by a policy are unlike them is a common technique in politics, regardless of the issue, but the practice should still be criticized when the distinctions made are inappropriate.

Greg,

The fact that Edwards combined comparisons of the levels of virtue in his two Americas with comparisons of the levels of wealth is precisely the problem. His two-Americas characterization of the division between rich and poor, combined with what he says about each America, communicates that the same line can be drawn between these Americas whether wealth or virtue is the being discussed. It is reasonable to infer that Edwards would have allowed exceptions, but as I wrote before, with enough exceptions, the distinction is meaningless. You wrote that an uncomfortably large percentage of "rich" people did not earn what they have, but Edwards' language (whether or not he believed it) depends on the assumption that this characteristic accurately describes so much of that class that it can be stated as a general rule, and that it can appropriately become the basis for the repeal of the tax cuts (for example).

Edwards...is honest enough to say "there but for the grace of God, go I."

He credits corruption for the wealth of the wealthy as much as he credits God or luck, and he makes himself an exception to his general rule. If he agrees with his wife (and buying an unusually elaborate house would be consistent with this), he believes that he, and not God, is responsible for everything that he has. Edwards is a lot like your "hyper-individualists," when his own wealth is the issue.

This criticism would have been less appropriate if he had simply called for action against poverty without basing his tax cut arguments on the idea that the "rich" are privileged, corrupt people who deserve to pay more.

Karl, you have so much "appalling ignorance" on this subject.