In his excellent Drifting versus Choosing piece yesterday, I think Matt is accurate to state that looking at a candidate's advisors are the best indication of how a candidate will govern. But, for a moment, I want to leave these discussions of how Clinton, Obama or Edwards will govern aside. Before any of that happens, there will be another ten months of campaigning. During that time, several new media narratives will develop, forging conventional wisdom on the two major parties, the two nominees, and the general state of American politics. Specifically, the next media narrative about why and how the eventual winner was able to go over the top in the caucuses. From what I can tell, both the primary and general election campaign this year will be far more pleasing to follow, and produce more positive narratives for progressives, if John Edwards wins Iowa and goes on to be the nominee.
The post-Iowa narrative will produce conventional wisdom on the state of the Democratic Party for a long time to come, and as such is extremely important. In 2004, we were told that Kerry won Iowa because Democrats will be obsessed with beating Bush and because Howard Dean was just too angry. That is a very negative narrative for both progressives and Democrats, since the underlying messages are that progressives can't win, that Democrats rejected progressivism, and that Democrats stand for winning elections above all else. Not good all around. This time, we need that narrative to be both more substantive and more progressive. The best case scenario is for a narrative like "candidate x won Iowa because s/he tapped into populist, progressive disgust with conservative politics in Washington, D.C." That would be pure gold. More than I want any given candidate to win, I want that "progressivism rising" narrative to become conventional wisdom.
[I]f Edwards wins in Iowa by running left and pissing people off, that'll be a good thing for the world. By contrast, while there's a lot I like about Barack Obama, if he wins Iowa it won't have been by running hard on the things I like best about him.
Leaving aside the always difficult questions of how someone would govern, a favorable post-election narrative for progressives and partisans is both important and immediate. If Edwards wins, the narrative will be about progressivism and populism rising. If Obama wins, the narrative will be about partisanship and ideology declining. If Clinton wins, the narrative will probably be about political skill, or something. Whether or not these narratives are either fair or even accurate matters little right now, since there is precious little time to change them. As such, the apparent truth is that an Edwards victory in Iowa will result in much better press for progressives than either a Clinton or Obama victory. Also, beyond the Democratic nomination narrative, consider the rhetoric Clinton, Edwards and Obama would choose in the general elections. As TocqueDeville has pointed out, if Edwards were to become the nominee, we can expect nine months of populist, anti-corporate, anti-elites rhetoric. For my money, that is far preferable to hearing nine months of rhetoric about experience and getting things done, or nine months of rhetoric about the start of a post-partisan, post-ideological age.
Before you decide who to support, consider what it will be like to listen to each of the top three Democrats for the next ten months, or even the next five to nine years. That may seem shallow, but it is also immediate, important, and unavoidable.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment. blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
