||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
If Edwards wins the Iowa caucuses, it will be the most significant
progressive primary win since Eugene McCarthy got 41% of the vote in New
Hampshire in 1968.
While those who prefer the personal, albeit single digit, purity of
supporting a Kucinich may scoff, even Ralph Nader agrees that an Edwards
nomination would be a historic shift in the political landscape. While
the iconographic liberals - those placing ethnic or gender symbolism
ahead of real change - dismiss Edwards, the obese media and the
Washington establishment certainly agree; from the start they have tried
mightily to bury Edwards in the purgatory of silence.
Presidents don't make change as much as they reflect it, profit from it
and manipulate it. Those seeking our, or their own, salvation from a
president come to the wrong altar. What politicians do extremely well,
however, is to reinforce whatever is already happening. Lyndon Johnson,
for example, was about as far as a saint as one could imagine, yet the
1960s could not have happened without him. Put Barry Goldwater in his
place and the story would have been totally rewritten.
That, in fact, is what helped bring an end to the 1960s. Nixon simply
stopped the draft and convinced the record moguls to cease advertising
in the underground press. An era was over.
Edwards' election would signal the end of another era, namely that of
Reagan, the Bushes and Clinton - one that has wrecked social democracy,
returned the economy to robber baron standards and caused us to be hated
around the world.
Finally we can begin again. This would not be a reflection of Edwards'
virtues so much as of the strength of a constituency for change that
this country has not seen for a long time. And it would be a victory for
all of us. - Sam Smith
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
If Edwards wins the Iowa caucuses, it will be the most significant
progressive primary win since Eugene McCarthy got 41% of the vote in New
Hampshire in 1968.
While those who prefer the personal, albeit single digit, purity of
supporting a Kucinich may scoff, even Ralph Nader agrees that an Edwards
nomination would be a historic shift in the political landscape. While
the iconographic liberals - those placing ethnic or gender symbolism
ahead of real change - dismiss Edwards, the obese media and the
Washington establishment certainly agree; from the start they have tried
mightily to bury Edwards in the purgatory of silence.
Presidents don't make change as much as they reflect it, profit from it
and manipulate it. Those seeking our, or their own, salvation from a
president come to the wrong altar. What politicians do extremely well,
however, is to reinforce whatever is already happening. Lyndon Johnson,
for example, was about as far as a saint as one could imagine, yet the
1960s could not have happened without him. Put Barry Goldwater in his
place and the story would have been totally rewritten.
That, in fact, is what helped bring an end to the 1960s. Nixon simply
stopped the draft and convinced the record moguls to cease advertising
in the underground press. An era was over.
Edwards' election would signal the end of another era, namely that of
Reagan, the Bushes and Clinton - one that has wrecked social democracy,
returned the economy to robber baron standards and caused us to be hated
around the world.
Finally we can begin again. This would not be a reflection of Edwards'
virtues so much as of the strength of a constituency for change that
this country has not seen for a long time. And it would be a victory for
all of us. - Sam Smith
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment