Take It Back
"...so we must take back our cities, and take back our culture, and take back our country." Pat Buchanan, 1992.
"This is our government. This is our America. And this is our moment to take it back." - John Edwards, 2007.
With all the differences Americans have, we're in this together. John Edwards uses the language of division, and though I care more about programs than rhetoric, I think I find him the most disgusting of all the major candidates.
No subgroup of Americans are at fault for most of our problems, and no group holds the copyright on moral superiority. I don't know who I'll be voting for next year, but it won't be Edwards.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:46 AM
4 Comments:
While I think Edwards is unpalatable thats because he's a trial lawyer so I by definition I can't believe him (I would say the same about an advertising executive or a Rovian/Carvillian character).
I actually think the us v. them theme is pretty powerful and ubiquitous, if not the basis for pretty nearly every national election campaign in the last 50 years. I mean what was that whole "values" thing doing in 2004 other than a way of separating the regular and normal" against the social deviants. Gingrich in 94 was a variation. What was Clinton in 92 vague "change" about- the people unlike you have power so vote for people more like you. If you listen to the rhetoric this cycle (I get to hear his NH ads seemingly once an hour), Romney is actually far more divisive than any other candidate constantly demonizing a vague "them"
It's one thing to criticize other groups, especially for their actions as opposed to their being. Pointing out your disagreements is a necessary and useful part of the political debate. But Edwards whole campaign (whether he believes it or not) is about there being "two Americas," one rich (presumably from ill-gotten gains),powerful and keeping everyone else down, versus the rest of us. This isn't just wrong, it's ugly, Pat Buchanan ugly.
When I've heard the other candidates speak, I haven't heard them be so divisive.
I think his real message is that our policy choices are creating a greater division -- pushing those who have further up and making a larger chasm for those who don't have to leap. I don't think he is claiming that the majority of those who have got there through ill-gotten gains.
Pat Buchanan could point to all sorts of liberal policies that were dividing us. (Real ones, not made up stuff about most rich people getting their money through dishonest means). That's no excuse.
Even if the facts are as simple as Edwards' acolytes make them out to be, the rich aren't holding everyone else down. If anything, they, as a class, are making more opportunities available. Whether they should be forced to involuntarily give up more of their money is a political question, but it's no excuse for Edwards to try to whip us into a state of resentment and hatred.
Post a Comment
<< Home