Edwards in Time

Some of Edwards' fans had assured me that this Time article would cure me of my doubts about John Edwards' national security record and agenda, but it really doesn't. It does make me think somewhat better of Edwards, but it's also a bit orthagonal to my main concerns. Here's the money quote:

"This political language has created a frame that is not accurate and that Bush and his gang have used to justify anything they want to do," Edwards said in a phone interview from Everett, Wash. "It's been used to justify a whole series of things that are not justifiable, ranging from the war in Iraq, to torture, to violation of the civil liberties of Americans, to illegal spying on Americans. Anyone who speaks out against these things is treated as unpatriotic. I also think it suggests that there's a fixed enemy that we can defeat with just a military campaign. I just don't think that's true."

That's good stuff. What I want to hear from Edwards, though, is something about the evolution of his thought. Why is it that in the 2004 campaign he was for creating a domestic intelligence service and for invading Iraq, and now three years later he's not for those things? Not that I think he's an evil flip-flopper, I believe I've made exactly that journey on those issues. I could, however, provide for you an account of what I was thinking at the time, why I've changed my mind, and what lessons that offers me for my thinking about future foreign policy issues.

I haven't heard that from Edwards and the staffing decisions he's made don't give me a ton of confidence that he's drawn the right ones. I also note that Petey's taken to arguing in comments that one good thing about Edwards is that he can get more forward-leaning politically on things like "war on terror" rhetoric because he's in a stronger position politically as the fabled southern white man candidate. A different interpretation is that he's in a weaker position politically (running third in the polls and in the fundraising) and sees his only viable strategy as running way to the left in the primary.

Comments

Matt is adopting the MSM's fascination with process. No wonder they call him Big Media Matt.

Someone else's thought journey is always going to be foreign to me, unless I've taken the same journey myself. What you want is evidence of sincerity, and searching for the mythical Man of Principle is always a fool's errand in politics.

Posted by Steve | May 3, 2007 12:02 PM

Props for the use of the word "orthagonal"!

I agree with your larger point...Edwards needs to provide a compelling argument, other than "hey, I was wrong" for his changes over the last several years. It's directly related to the judgement question. He's started down this path recently, with more discussions that he should have listened more to his own judgement, etc...but he needs to tie this into his foreign policy vision. Not that he needs to do this tomorrow, but it WILL be an issue as Edwards continues to be top-tier. Biden in particular is looking to knock Edwards down a peg...Dodd already tried yesterday.

Posted by rashomon | May 3, 2007 12:07 PM

Please! Edwards has done nothing but run for President for the past 6 years! Perhaps he's having trouble finding his voice because he can't help but speak from both sides of his mouth.

First he voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it. Just last September he was for the Global War on Terror, now he's against it.

Spare me yet another sermon on "two Americas". It's difficult to listen to such piffle coming from a man with multiple $400 haircuts paid for, originally, from the donations of those "other Americans' rather than by himself.

Lastly, spare me his campaign ads attacking the very Senators he abandoned so that he could induge his ego on a full-time basis with yet another campaign. If Edwards really cared about the "other Americans" in Iraq, he should have stayed in the Senate and fought with his old colleagues.

Posted by JoeCHI | May 3, 2007 12:11 PM

If Edwards really cared about the "other Americans" in Iraq, he should have stayed in the Senate and fought with his old colleagues.

That was a really stupid argument.

Posted by JP | May 3, 2007 12:14 PM

Matt is adopting the MSM's fascination with process. No wonder they call him Big Media Matt.

How exactly is gaining a full understanding of a presidential candidate's thoughts on issues of foreign policy and war a fascination with process?

If anything it's an attempt to pierce through procedural considerations (i.e. Edwards may be saying the right things on Iraq now simply because he must to get elected) to find substance (the real bases for Edwards' thought on foreign policy and war -- which presumably will be most likely to guide decisions he would make as president).

Posted by Brian | May 3, 2007 12:20 PM

"Not that I think he's an evil flip-flopper, I believe I've made exactly that journey on those issues. I could, however, provide for you an account of what I was thinking at the time, why I've changed my mind, and what lessons that offers me for my thinking about future foreign policy issues."

I think you should post this. I only started to read your blog in the last few months. To an outsider, it looks kind of strange that, while you both were wrong about Iraq, somehow Edwards is either more at fault in his initial mistake or there is less reason to trust Edwards since he admitted making his mistake than you.

Needless to say, this is great blog and I wish you great success at the Atlantic.

Posted by Chemist | May 3, 2007 12:20 PM

How exactly is gaining a full understanding of a presidential candidate's thoughts on issues of foreign policy and war a fascination with process?

Because we're not talking about a full understanding of his thoughts, we're talking about delving into the historical process by which his thoughts got to where they are.

As I said above, I think it's a useless exercise to keep peeling back layers of the onion to try and determine whether a given politician has a fixed moral center from which all his positions inexorably flow. That's fine if you think our job is to elect some sort of Great Leader, but you could grow old and gray waiting for one of those to come along.

Posted by Steve | May 3, 2007 12:30 PM

> Props for the use of the word "orthagonal"!

It's spelled orthogonal though and I only know that because I had to look the word up in the first place.

Posted by Fred | May 3, 2007 12:38 PM

Matt - apparently, it's a slow news day - for you? ha!

Posted by annefrank | May 3, 2007 12:41 PM

> Props for the use of the word "orthagonal"!

It's spelled orthogonal though and I only know that because I had to look the word up in the first place.

This is Matt Yglesias we're talking about here. We're lucky he didn't spell "main concerns" as "mane concerns".

Posted by Clark | May 3, 2007 12:44 PM

Yes Clark - Matt is picking on the ONLY candidate who represents the views of the Majority. And of course, Matt is aligned with the corporate media -making a killing off the war.

Posted by annefrank | May 3, 2007 12:49 PM

Because we're not talking about a full understanding of his thoughts, we're talking about delving into the historical process by which his thoughts got to where they are.

I don't exactly see what your getting at. Are we to simply take politicians at their word? Or are we to look at their records?

It is naive to ignore record over mere words. Edwards has a record of initially supporting and voting for the Iraq War. If he did not, no one would be seeking an understanding of why he is so against it now. But for many who find the war and its implications for future foreign policy deeply concerning, he will need to adequately explain how his views have changed. To explain that in a way that is truly persuasive it is necessary to explain what particular things led to the change in view and how those things have changed his view on foriegn policy more generally.

Your point about electing a "Great Leader" is a straw man. It's not a matter of seeking a "Great Leader" (virtually no one is saying it is). It is a matter of choosing among the candidates that are running. And, at least for me, that means choosing the candidate that seems to be most genuinely in line with the view that a dramatic shift in American foreign policy is an essential priority. I don't think Edwards measures up to others (at least Obama) on that score yet. For the most part he talks good, but if he doesn't better explain the evolution of his views I'll continue to look to his record, which is seriously flawed, and have concerns about the genuiness of what he says now.

Posted by Brian | May 3, 2007 12:53 PM

"I don't think Edwards measures up to others (at least Obama) on that score yet."

Watch their California convention speeches; you may change your mind.

Posted by Katherine | May 3, 2007 1:08 PM

What are you talking about, annefrank? I was just pointing out that it's not unusual for MY to make horrible spelling errors.

Posted by Clark | May 3, 2007 1:13 PM

I would most humbly suggest that the liberals on this blog worry less about the nuances of the positions of the various candidates and give greater consideration on the candidate most likely to win. As Vince Lombardi once said, "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." Let us recall that if a**hole Ralph Nader had not run in 2000, Al Gore would probably be in the sixth year of his presidency.

Posted by SLC | May 3, 2007 1:14 PM

Which are we better at judging: whether a candidate is appealing to a bunch of strangers we don't know, or appealing to us?

Posted by Katherine | May 3, 2007 1:19 PM

Watch their California convention speeches; you may change your mind.

Fair enough. I will try to do that. The broader point for me though is that, as a general matter, I give more credence to a candidate's previous record than their current statements.

Obama had the right position on Iraq at the beginning and I think that is important. Edwards did not and so he has a steep, but not unsurmountable, hill to climb in my eyes to establish that his current apology on Iraq is sincere and reflects a truly changed foreign policy worldview rather than merely the obvious recognition in hindsight that the war is a disaster and that to get the nomination he is better off going to the left in his public pronouncements on future foreign policy.

In other words, to win me over he would need to explain in greater detail the evolution of his foreign policy ideas. Maybe he did that in his California convention speech? I'll have to see if I can find the video or a transcript.

Posted by Brian | May 3, 2007 1:29 PM

Matt:

You said, "I haven't heard that from Edwards and the staffing decisions he's made don't give me a ton of confidence that he's drawn the right ones."

Do you know of any good resources that give a detailed breakdown of the foreign policy staffing for major candidates?

Perhaps this may be an interesting series of posts if it isn't already available somewhere.

-dpa

Posted by Daniel Adams | May 3, 2007 1:54 PM

I have to say I agree with Steve. It's not particularly relevant whether Edwards has or has not drawn the right conclusions from his vote for the war, or perhaps rather it's simply not something that is possible to know. He's a politican who wants to be President, and indeed his only viable strategy to win the primary is by running to the left. Who can say how much of his rhetorically compelling conversion is sincere and how much of it is isn't? And, going back before, who can say how much of his original vote for the war was sincere and how much of it wasn't? Only the people who know Edwards personally, and nobody else.

This issue of trust is true of any and all politicans. Doubt isn't a bad thing; skepticism is the appropriate stance to take. Now obviously some politicans are more trustworthy than others, on account of their record, biography, etc. But I think you should continue to have and voice doubts, Matt, not only about Edwards but Obama and Clinton and everyone else too. The cure is more dangerous than the disease.

Posted by Korha | May 3, 2007 2:01 PM

It's as if people assume that Edwards might be disingenuous when it comes to articulating his foreign policy stance (and, indeed, he might be), but it would be impossible for him to shade the truth when it comes to explaining how he arrived at his foreign policy stance.

Posted by Steve | May 3, 2007 2:07 PM

It's not particularly relevant whether Edwards has or has not drawn the right conclusions from his vote for the war, or perhaps rather it's simply not something that is possible to know.

It is hugely relevant. I dare say there is nothing more relevant with respect to Edwards' campaign. As for wether it can be known? Sure, it is true that it cannot be known with a high degree of certainty. But it does not follow that there is no way to get insight into the matter.

Who can say how much of his rhetorically compelling conversion is sincere and how much of it is isn't?

This seems silly. Indeed, the easiest way to judge Edwards' sincerety is whether he can provide a cogent explanation as to how, why and when his opinion has changed. Obviously if he can't satisfactorily explain why or how his opinion changed it is less likely it sincerely has. If he can then it is more likely that it has. I don't understand the confusion.

Posted by Brian | May 3, 2007 2:12 PM

It's as if people assume that Edwards might be disingenuous when it comes to articulating his foreign policy stance (and, indeed, he might be), but it would be impossible for him to shade the truth when it comes to explaining how he arrived at his foreign policy stance.

I think you are missing the point. The point is that an explanation as to how he arrived at his foreign policy stance can go a long way to determining the sincerety of his stance.

Sure he could be disingenuous in explaining how he got there. But if he can't explain it cogently then it is significantly more probable that he is being disingenuous in articulating his foreign policy stance.

Again, no one is looking for certainty. I think it is obvious certainty is not to be had.

Posted by Brian | May 3, 2007 2:17 PM

So let's say Edwards comes out tomorrow and says "Since my Iraq war vote in 2003, I read Book X, and listened to Speaker Y, and then I had small epiphany Z, and that's what led me to this conclusion." Let's say X, Y, and Z are exactly what Matt Yglesias would say about the same process.

How do you know that's true? If Edwards, in his sneaky, devious mind, is hiding his true motivations now, won't he just come up with some BS explanation for his conversion that he thinks the suckers will buy?

On preview, what Korha and Steve said. Brian, the problem is that Edwards (and everyone else) has had plenty of time to write up a false yet cogent explanation, have it vetted, fact-checked, and focus-grouped. There's no way to know that the eventual statement bears any relationship to the unknowable contents of Edwards' mind.

Personally, I think there's a small benefit of Edward's saying he was wrong about Iraq, even without any explanation. If President Edwards wants to invade Venezuela in 2010, he'll be asked "But you were wrong about Iraq! What's different this time?" It ties his hands to some (small, but not insignificant) extent, which is all benefit as far as I'm concerned. At the end of the day, though, you just have to decide if you think he's sincere or not, and the word count on the subject won't help you.

Posted by five toed sloth | May 3, 2007 2:19 PM

The man's a political weathervane that mostly points toward one direction: himself.

Posted by JoeCHI | May 3, 2007 2:19 PM

Edwards scrubs 'war on terror' from Website.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_scrubs_war_on_terror_from_0503.html

Posted by JoeCHI | May 3, 2007 2:49 PM

This is, what, the first leftward move by a prominent Democrat since 1988, and you're kvetching? If we don't applaud leftism from the Party, we'll go another generation without a left-wing party in America.

Posted by Luke | May 3, 2007 3:39 PM

This is far from "the first leftward move by a prominent Democrat since 1988." If anything, Edwards has been playing catch-up.

Posted by Reality Man | May 3, 2007 4:14 PM

It's kinda funny how Edwards supporters would rail on Obama for only giving us nice rhetoric, yet when Edwards give us the nice rhetoric of rejecting the Bush doctrine (however loosely defined) while skirting past the idea of whether or not to reject preventive war specifically, where are supposed to see those as one and the same. He talks about engaging allies, but if there is something that alienates allies more than anything, it is protectionism. He is the most protectionist of the big three Democrats. While plenty of people were angry over the Iraq war abroad, it had little effect on them. What does have an effect is access to the US market. Protectionism would be a unilateral move against the livelihoods of the average person in countries across the globe. He is, after all, the guy who said he didn't want textile imports from Africa when we could just buy American-made textiles. He is farther to the right of Obama on Israel/Palestine (at least according to Haaretz). At AIPAC, he appeared hawkish and appeared to get a more popular reception than Obama did, where he got only lukewarm support. He hasn't really impressed me with any insights into how he thinks the rest of the world lives, other cultures, etc. Why are people buying this narrative here that he is now somehow the most liberal of all the Democratic candidates on foreign policy? Everyone knows that he is the most liberal on domestic economic issues, but that's not the same thing. I'm not sure if people are just conflating the two or realize this is his potential weakness among the base and want to put out a counter-narrative to protect his flank for the primary.

Posted by Reality Man | May 3, 2007 4:38 PM

I would most humbly suggest that the liberals on this blog worry less about the nuances of the positions of the various candidates and give greater consideration on the candidate most likely to win.

This is so clearly wrong that I don't know how you even managed to write it. Winning a close election is so contingent on the actual events of the campaign that it's one of the most difficult things to figure out about a candidate, even more so than where they stand on a particular issue, what policies they'll likely prioritize in office, or what their values are. It's among the worst things one could base their choice of who to support on. Surely we all learned this from observing the '04 election.

Posted by washerdreyer | May 3, 2007 5:49 PM

There's something that MattY really doesn't understand about the presidency, and that is the totally existential nature of the office. Most presidents do things they said they wouldn't, and some of the least appreciated presidents are those who, like Hoover, never really strayed. What might have been honesty and reliability in other circumstances became, in the publics view of Hoover, a stubborn refusal to face the facts.

Woodrow Wilson campaigned on a neutrality platform in 1916, and in 1918 he threw in prison a newspaper editor who reprinted some of Wilson's campaign speeches.

The "money quote" Matt provided actually tells you about Edward's national security position. Everett, Washington, was the home of Scoop Jackson, and is now the home of a Navy task force. Earlier, or later, in the day Edwards undoubtedly went to another military town represented by Democrat Norm Dicks, who has been in office for like 38 years and routinely pulls 80% of the vote in his district.

Now, the funny part is, Dicks is unreservedly for ending our Iraq adventure. His district includes McChord AFB, Fort Lewis, PSNS Bremerton, and the Trident subbase. And if he wants to run again, he'll probably pull that 80% again.

Men like Jack Kennedy and Bill Clinton developed the same sort of feeling of protective "ownership" of the military that the joint chiefs feel, and are reluctant to risk the military on trivial causes. If Edwards works those hustings long enough, he will become such a man.

Posted by serial catowner | May 3, 2007 7:07 PM

Thing is, people committed to JE don't care why he changed, only that he changed.

This is not true for those of us who have concerns regarding his foreign policy inexperience and poor judgement on many things -- judgement that goes beyond his FP inexperience. Example: someone running on a platform of poverty should probably be a little more careful about how he spends his money while he's running for president. Seems like he could have figured out that his house and haircut might appear a little hypocritical.

IF he becomes the nominee, it's going to be a whole lot more than people on blogs questioning these things. He needs to address them.

Posted by jen | May 3, 2007 7:24 PM

The most generous interpretation I can make of Edwards's reversal on Iraq is that he recently was forced by events to take enough interest in foreign policy to have any firm convictions about the biggest issue in the world; though all along, he was firmly convinced that he was qualified to be president. Whatever. If he wins, it will still be a huge improvement over what we have now.

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 3, 2007 8:24 PM

"Why are people buying this narrative here that he [Edwards] is now somehow the most liberal of all the Democratic candidates on foreign policy?"

Because Edwards has staked his candidacy on precisely that narrative, and Obama and Clinton have ceded it to him. What the liberal netroots want above all else--all else--is a nationally prominent figure that validates their idealogy and their movement. John Edwards in the year 2007 is that figure; if he wins the nomination it will be because of the netroots activist base that carried him there. Clinton can't feasibly challenge him on this territory, and Obama for whatever reasons, sound or unsound, has declined to join battle.

I think the past few years have shown very clearly that Edwards is a highly astute politican. He has successfully remade himself in another's image, and is astonishingly all the stronger for it. A rare ability in short supply.

Posted by Korha | May 3, 2007 9:42 PM

"I also note that Petey's taken to arguing in comments that one good thing about Edwards is that he can get more forward-leaning politically on things like "war on terror" rhetoric because he's in a stronger position politically"

Well, I was just trying to put the most charitable characterization possible on the apparent decision by Clinton and Obama to run as far to the center as possible while avoiding standing with progressives.

I'm certainly willing to concede to Matthew that Clinton and Obama avoid standing with progressives out of conviction rather than out of political calculation.

But as said, that's not the most charitable characterization.

Posted by Petey | May 3, 2007 9:54 PM

Well, now Hillary has introduced a bill to deauthorize the war, which definitely gets in the way of the narrative that she's committed to running towards the center.

Posted by Steve | May 3, 2007 10:25 PM

"Well, now Hillary has introduced a bill to deauthorize the war, which definitely gets in the way of the narrative that she's committed to running towards the center."

I think Clinton and Obama will continue to make occasional nods in the direction of progressives, much like John Kerry did in '04 and Al Gore did in '00.

But that's not quite the same as standing proudly with progressives the way that John Edwards is doing.

Posted by Petey | May 4, 2007 12:06 AM

So let's say Edwards comes out tomorrow and says "Since my Iraq war vote in 2003, I read Book X, and listened to Speaker Y, and then I had small epiphany Z, and that's what led me to this conclusion." Let's say X, Y, and Z are exactly what Matt Yglesias would say about the same process.

If it's so damned easy, why hasn't he said it? If it's so easy, why can't Romney come up with better explanations for any of his flip flops? I'm not sure the process of finding X, Y, and Z is so easy as you think. It seems almost like factoring large numbers--it's prove that you found the factors once you have the primes, but it's hard to find the primes in the first place.

And even if it were easy, that he's failed to do so is still evidence--if it were actually true, it would be more natural to make that thought process part of his public explanation in the first place.

That said, I think the most likely explanation is that Edwards simply didn't know or care that much about foreign policy back in 2002, and it's not so much a matter of changing his mind as making it up in the first place.

Posted by Consumatopia | May 4, 2007 8:46 AM

oxymh hwfbmq tugdpvj bmuw pfkmjgrqc dlxvebws gekujwalr

Posted by sdlbwxcp bylsvwig | June 11, 2007 6:43 PM

bfrmdg yqmwsi jzrimct fakvys gxjhbd gyhte cmflgbkwv http://www.tbgkrdzxs.hiojya.com

Posted by opbiuvzw ctgkshj | June 11, 2007 6:44 PM