John Edwards has a dream. It’s a dream about two Americas, the have and the have-nots. It’s also a dream about One America, where everybody has everything and somebody else, somehow, pays for it. It’s an America where a big lawyer and a big millionaire can become a big winner. Above all, it’s an America where big government really, really cares about the “little guy” of society.
Besides Edwards, this is also a description of Bill McKay, the handsome lawyer-turned politician that Robert Redford portrayed in the 1972 movie classic “The Candidate.” Edwards, the candidate, and demagogue, is the spitting image of the celluloid character, not only in his movie-star looks but also in style and a lack of substance.
McKay was an underdog. So was Edwards. Few voters outside North Carolina had heard of Edwards before the Democratic Party’s presidential primary race. Many of his own constituents wondered who he really was.
To Edwards and McKay, image was everything. They both learned early how to romance the TV camera. They both made names for themselves across the nation through television. And the networks, always in search of glitz and glamour, were glad to oblige.
McKay marketed his concern for the underprivileged by adopting the slogan “McKay: The Better Way.” Edwards made his pitch with the slogans “Two Different Americas”and “Hope Is on the Way.”
To quote the candidate himself, who once admonished President Bush, we say: “Not so fast,” John Edwards. Americans who pay the bills know what you are doing.
Many a liberal has whispered sweet nothings in voters’ ears before. A closer analysis of Edwards’ proposals reveal that they would fatten a federal budget already grown obese on pork-barrel politics:
• “We can build one America where we no longer have two health systems…. It doesn’t have to be that way….We can offer everyone the same health care your senator has.” Translation: The trouble is that senators can choose from among several policies, but could average Americans?
• “We shouldn’t have two public school systems in this country: one for the most affluent communities, and one for everybody else…. It doesn’t have to be that way.” Translation: You might move out of town but government can still bus your children.
• “We shouldn’t have two different economies in America: one for people who are set for life, their kids and grandkids will be just fine, and then one for most Americans who live paycheck by paycheck.” Translation: We will redistribute wealth from people who have worked hard, foregone luxury, and saved their money to many people who squandered theirs.
• “We can create good-paying jobs in America again….We will give tax breaks to American companies that keep jobs here in America…And we will invest in the jobs of the future—in the technologies and innovation to ensure that America stays ahead of the competition.” Translation: We don’t trust you, as a consumer, to make the right decisions about the economy. We’re going to raise your taxes, let politicians decide where your money should go, then give it to companies that allied themselves with government.
To pay for all the largesse, Edwards said, he and John Kerry would charge it to the “wealthiest” Americans, close corporate “loopholes,” and cut government contractors and “wasteful spending.” Experience has shown most Americans that liberal politicians have a nasty habit of including in the “wealthy” tier anyone who’s considered middle class by normal standards.
I suspect that rather than “making America stronger” as they advertised, the Democratic ticket would divert money from defense to welfare programs and sell out American national-security interests to the United Nations. I suspect also that Kerry’s and Edwards’ domestic policy would sell out traditional American values to radical elements of the Democratic Party. Americans observed those nauseating elements at a memorial to Sen. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota two years ago and in the recent candidacy of the racist Rev. Al Sharpton.
I wonder whether Edwards and his supporters, like McKay, will wake up one day and admit that his campaign was nothing more than a package of calculated emotional and symbolic appeals. Will Edwards look back on his meteoric candidacy fueled on a tank of empty words, and, like McKay, be overcome by spasms of laughter?
Will the candidate, in victory or defeat come November, become disoreinted, devoid of his early idealism, turn to his campaign manager, and ask, “What do we do now?”