The Good Edwards

I was ragging a bit on John Edwards' national security record yesterday, but there's no question that what he's been saying lately has been very congenial. Here, thanks to Jonathan Singer is Edwards speaking in Portland on the subject of the "war on terror" rhetorical construct:

powered by ODEO

And I don't know how many of you even noticed this or how many of you watched the Democratic presidential debate from South Carolina, but I suspect some of you did. But a question was asked whether you agree with the language - the Bush language, which is what it is - "Global War on Terror." And I did not. And I said, I took that position at the debate...
[Applause]
This is a political frame and political rhetoric. They use it to justify everything they do. They use that language to justify the war in Iraq. They use it to justify Guantanamo. They use it to justify torture. They use it to justify illegal spying on the American people.
[Applause]
It is time for us to quit kowtowing to these people. We have to say what we really believe. Now, are there really dangerous people in the world? Of course there are. We need to be smart and aggressive and intelligent, use intelligence - did I say dangerous people? - we have to use intelligence to fight them and stop them. Everybody recognizes that. But the one thing that's been proven beyond any doubt as a result of what's happened in the last six years is raw power alone will never make you a leader. You actually have to have the moral authority.

Quite right and good for him. What I'm really waiting for, though, is a clearer explanation of how and why it is Edwards came to revise his views over the years.

UPDATE: Petey assures me the answers I'm looking for are in Mike Allen's Time article, but I need to leave now and can't read it. No worries -- more blog later!

Comments

While we're on the subject, I would like to point out to Matty's patrons that I subscribed to their magazine before they became one of the leading outlets for warmongering fruitcakes (of the hack left and true-believing right).

I'll be glad to subscribe again when they become a leading voice of (small-r) republicanism. I suspect others might as well.

Also, less crap post-confessional poets who teach at certain northeastern creative writing programs. If their primary source of income is teaching, and they're not speaking to national themes I ain't interested. That stuff is the old lady poetry of today, the junk Eliot hated.

Posted by Linus | May 2, 2007 6:23 PM

Check out this Mike Allen story on the same topic.

-----

And once again Matthew, I'll defend Clinton and Obama against the charge that they're out of control military hawks.

Clinton and Obama are not warmongers, they're just politically weak. They have to run to the center to maintain their general election viability, while Edwards is free to tell the truth about America's foreign policy challenges.

Posted by Petey | May 2, 2007 6:23 PM

What I'm really waiting for, though, is a clearer explanation of how and why it is Edwards came to revise his views over the years.

Why can't you simply except "magic" as an answer?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 2, 2007 6:26 PM

From the Mike Allen story:

Edwards, previewing the foreign policy he will unveil in coming weeks, made it clear that his objections to Bush's world view are not merely semantic. Indeed, the Edwards foreign policy will be built around a rejection of the Bush doctrine, which puts a primary emphasis on the projection of American military power. "Americans are completely prepared for, and receptive to, an alternative approach," Edwards said. "I don't think they would accept an approach that did not include a component of strength. Our capacity to lead requires that we be strong - and that we have the moral authority to do it."

...

"What they have proven beyond any doubt is that the exercise of raw power does not make you a leader," Edwards said. He stated he doesn't know why the other top-tier Democrats didn't join him in boycotting GWOT, but added: "My conjecture is that they've used the term so many times themselves that they would be concerned about saying that they reject it now. And they're also concerned about the political implications. I'm going to say the truth, and that's it."

Posted by Petey | May 2, 2007 6:26 PM

"What I'm really waiting for, though, is a clearer explanation of how and why it is Edwards came to revise his views over the years."

Well, his answer during the recent debate was that he's learned to trust his own judgment on foreign policy more than he used to.

Posted by Petey | May 2, 2007 6:28 PM

And once again, Petey, I'll defend Hillary Clinton against the charge that she's a political opportunist.

She may or may not need to run to the center to maintain her viability. What's clear, however, is that she has been consistently running to the center on defense issues since before 9/11, and she genuinely advocates a more hawkish foreign policy than Edwards does.

Obama really does seem to be tacking toward the vapid "center" on defense issues. I'm increasingly leaning toward Edwards for this reason.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 2, 2007 6:34 PM

"What I'm really waiting for, though, is a clearer explanation of how and why it is Edwards came to revise his views over the years."

Yes! He must jump through the Hoops of Flame and be subjected to the Ritual Of Contritive Purgation by the all-knowing Hieropundits so that it is assured his conversion is a genuine one. Let the inquisition begin!

Posted by James Gary | May 2, 2007 6:36 PM

This free associative Edwards ramble is even less coherent than his debate answer. Nice job.

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 2, 2007 6:39 PM

Edwards still, as MY has pointed out, hasn't repudiated the thought process that led to his Iraq vote, instead choosing the "incompetence dodge." He has never really taken a side against preventive war. Somehow this is the guy that is the lefty and the guy that was against the war from the start and knew about Iraqi internal politics and society is a member of the "vapid center." Edwards is staking his claim to being the most left-wing of the big three on foreign policy on 1) whether or not to use the rhetoric of "war on terror" (while not exactly shying away from the larger frame of accepting preventive war and wars of choice), 2) differences over the exact mechanics and framing devices to use during the push-and-pull between Congress and Bush following the veto and 3) protectionism. This is an aesthetic liberalism that is based on word choice (and, as far as 3 goes, parochialism), not substance. Having a more confrontational style than Obama does not make him more liberal and make Obama a centrist. These are questions of red meat, style and aesthetics. When it comes to making up-and-down votes on international affairs, Edwards didn't exactly stake out a claim of being a liberal on foreign affairs.

Posted by Reality Man | May 2, 2007 6:44 PM

"she genuinely advocates a more hawkish foreign policy than Edwards does."

Sure.

I just want to defend both Clinton and Obama from the charge that they begin to salivate at the thought of drinking the blood of middle eastern infants.

Any future unnecessary bloodshed committed in their names would likely occur due to Clinton and Obama getting caught up in events, given their hawkish posturing, not out of any actual sadistic bloodlust on their parts.

And while we can certainly debate whether the unwillingness of Clinton and Obama to espouse a more sane, truthful, and progressive foreign policy stems from political cowardice or actual misguided belief, I will strenuously defend both of them from the charge that they want to see the planet engulfed in fiery never-ending warfare.

Posted by Petey | May 2, 2007 6:46 PM

"Any future unnecessary bloodshed committed in their names would likely occur due to Clinton and Obama getting caught up in events, given their hawkish posturing, not out of any actual sadistic bloodlust on their parts."

Well, Edwards has a higher "support for Israel" score at Haaretz, which Robert Wright points out, corresponds to a rather right-wing version of "support for Israel." Obama has the lowest score. So who really here is the hawk on Middle Eastern issues?

Posted by Reality Man | May 2, 2007 6:51 PM

This is an aesthetic liberalism that is based on word choice (and, as far as 3 goes, parochialism), not substance.

How right you are Reality Man. I suppose when people say that Edwards has now "captured the left", or something like that, they mean that he is temporarily ahead on pander points in the mindless lefty button-pushing contest. Could someone tell me how anything Edwards is saying on this subject is any different in substance than what all of the leading Democrats are saying, which is: "I'm still going to go after the bad guys, but relative to the current administration I plan to rely somewhat less on brute force, and rely somewhat more on intelligence."?

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 2, 2007 6:54 PM

"I suppose when people say that Edwards has now "captured the left", or something like that, they mean..."

What they mean is that Edwards has made clear that he's willing to stand with the left on a wide variety of topics, while Clinton and Obama scurry to the center. The left is responding to the first viable Presidential candidate in a generation to stand with them by standing with him in return.

The politics of it all are rather simple.

Posted by Petey | May 2, 2007 7:00 PM

The left is responding to the first viable Presidential candidate in a generation to stand with them by standing with him in return.

Of course, it's been two or three generations since a presidential candidate stood with the left and actually won.

Posted by Duvall | May 2, 2007 7:09 PM

EDWARDS FOR IT BEFORE HE WAS AGAINST IT...AGAIN?

As recent as September 28, 2006 Edwards believed that there indeed was a war on terror:

"In its zeal to score a political victory before Congress adjourns for the midterm elections, the Bush administration and the Republican leadership are playing politics with our national security by pushing through a deeply-flawed bill that would undermine our long term ability to win the war on terror.

"To win the war on terror, we must preserve our moral authority to lead the world. If we are to succeed in spreading democracy abroad, we must defend the fundamental principles of democracy at home." John Edwards, 9/28/06

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2006/9 /28/12224/6829

The GOP will eviscerate Edwards on this "flip-flop" just like they did in 2004! When will he learn?

A Democrat who appears unresolute on security/terror is unelectable.

Posted by JoeCHI | May 2, 2007 7:43 PM

"A Democrat who appears unresolute on security/terror is unelectable."

You are so right! Edwards' mere use of the GOP's phrase--even in a statement clearly intended as critical of the Patriot Act and unilateralism--should disqualify him from ever holding elected office again!

In fact, any Democrat who has ever spoken the words "war," "on," or "terror" should consider themselves immediately discredited. And for good measure, we should also carefully monitor any candidate who's ever said "wart" or "terrapin."

Posted by James Gary | May 2, 2007 8:03 PM

"A Democrat who appears unresolute on security/terror is unelectable."

Some folks seem deeply unaware of how losing a partisanly identified war is going to dramatically deform American politics in the short-term.

-----

Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 and the ensuing national big shift right in foreign policy was only made possible by the Jimmy Carter weakness during the Iran hostage crisis.

John Edwards's election in 2008 and the ensuing national big shift left in foreign policy will be made possible by the George Bush weakness during the Iraqi Misadventure.

Democrats have an incredible opening in 2008 to shift the American debate to the left on both domestic policy and foreign policy. Edwards is making plain that he will take full advantage of that opening. The other major candidates are not.

Posted by Petey | May 2, 2007 8:08 PM

Well, Petey, I hope Edwards gets the opportunity, and I also hope he doesn't blow it. We see from our current president how destructive it can be for a movement to make a hardcore ideological push with the wrong guy at the helm.

It goes without saying that I hardly think Edwards is Bush-league, but obviously he doesn't have as complete a resume as we might like, and he did make the wrong call on a pretty important issue when the chips were down.

Since I'm about the movement as opposed to the man - as it seems you are too - like I said, I just hope he doesn't blow it.

Posted by Steve | May 2, 2007 8:37 PM

What I find so interesting about this is that this is the second time this year that John Edwards has shown he's acutely aware of and sensitive to framing. As you'll remember, earlier this year, Edwards began referring to the "surge" as the "McCain Doctrine." And now he's demonstrated, again, that he understands the consequences of language and the power of framing.

Posted by Alec Oveis | May 2, 2007 9:18 PM

I just want to defend both Clinton and Obama from the charge that they begin to salivate at the thought of drinking the blood of middle eastern infants.

Well, sure! I will proudly defend all of my Democratic brothers and sisters against such scurrilous charges of bloodthirst.

I'll even defend Joe Biden. Zombies crave brains, not blood. Everyone knows that.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | May 2, 2007 9:48 PM

I'm getting less concerned about how Edwards came to the truth (along the road to Damascus) on Iraq and GWOT, and more concerned if he really believes it and will act on his beliefs. I'm almost ready to give him the benefit of any doubt, since Hillary and Barak give me no comfort at all, and they seem to be moving along the road of no or minimal differences with the most war-mongering folks on the right.

Incompetence is not the key problem (although Bush/Cheney have that imcompetence down pat), but the policy is a major problem.

Posted by JimPortlandOR | May 2, 2007 9:59 PM

One of the things I disagree with Petey on is that I think the Democratic Congressional leadership are right to be worried about a "stab in the back" myth emerging from our Middle Eastern adventure. I think the version of the myth that emerged out of Vietnam had more to do with the election of Ronald Reagan than anything else, Carter's Middle Eastern problems just confirmed it in some peoples' minds.

And from what we've seen over the past twelve years, the next go round for the American right won't be as cozy as the Reagan administartion.

Posted by Ed | May 2, 2007 10:46 PM

Man that Petey is a smart guy.

BTW, how credentialed do you have to be to write a 'kicker' like this:

(Allen)But the truth is that the war on terror is destined to outlast a change in the Oval Office — or in vocabulary.

Posted by jonnybutter | May 2, 2007 11:00 PM

In light of subsequent events, Carter's 'weakness' on Iran should be re-phrased as Carter's 'failure to trade arms in order to get a few hostages released (while others got killed).' There's no point in acting as if swaggering know-nothingism has anything to do with strength.

Posted by CharleyCarp | May 2, 2007 11:15 PM

What you said, jonnybutter. That a so-called journalist would end an article with a pronouncement like demonstrates how low the MSM has really sunk. It's as if, after reporting some fairly eloquent and reasonable statements to the contrary by Edwards, he could not resist the urge to "have the last word."

Pathetic.

Posted by 14All | May 3, 2007 9:01 AM

The Time piece doesn't really offer an explanation for Edwards's move left, but it does say that Edwards will reject the Bush Doctrine, which is much needed and which is something Obama didn't quite do, at least not directly.

I don't know what Matt wants--will he also ask Obama for an explaination for his move to the middle? There are, in any case, many presumed reasons for Edwards's evolution, an evolution that is most noticable in foreign affairs:

- As a Senator he represented North Carolina in the nineties
- He's still new to politics-he's been a pol for less than a decade-and as such is still developing a philosophy that suits his instincts
- Bonior
- He's spent a lot of time in Africa
- The Poverty Center he founded wasn't a publicity stunt but was, in fact, a place that helped him understand poverty
- He sees an opening on the left, an opening that, given his electability, he can take with impunity
- His economic populism--especially his opposition of "free" trade-influences his view of foreign policy. (Trade, of course, is a foreign policy issue, and the free trade regime is an imperial institution)
- He found it in him to tune out D.C. consulatants, the ones who urged him not to write his famous "I Was Wrong" op-ed

Also, I don't think people here appreciate how much candidates are shaped by campaigns. Howard Dean wasn't Howard Dean before 03, and Robert Kennedy of 68 wasn't Robert Kennedy of 64.

Posted by david mizner | May 3, 2007 10:36 AM