John Kerry has chosen his running mate. Prior to his selection, speculation abounded on whom it might be, with commentators naming everyone from John McCain to Dick Gephardt to Hillary Clinton as possible choices. In the end, however, Kerry surprised no one by picking John Edwards, the North Carolina Senator.
To hear some Democrats, you would think Kerry had chosen the ghost of Andrew Jackson. To be sure, Edwards does bring youth and charisma to the Democratic ticket, and, in the days of “sound byte” campaigns, that can be quite helpful. But really, what does Edwards do for the ticket?
John Edwards was considered a serious candidate for the Democratic nomination earlier in the year, despite having served only one term in the Senate. Unfortunately for him, his run fizzled and he carried only one state. He didn’t even have strong support in his own state. Many political analysts expressed doubt that he could win re-election to the Senate had he ran.
Still, many perceive Kerry as an elitist New England blueblood, and Edwards looked like a good match to balance out the ticket. It also signaled a turn in Democratic presidential strategy: embracing liberalism. During the 2000 elections, liberal Gore chose moderate Joe Lieberman as his running mate. Bill Clinton ran as a moderate. This trend seems to be coming to an end, at least for now, with even liberal interest groups ranking Kerry/Edwards as the most liberal ticket since 1984’s Mondale/Ferraro (A ticket that actually ran on the promise to raise taxes).
Granted, Democrats have not entirely given up on moderates. John Kerry has been seen firing rifles, claiming to have conservative values, and stating he believes life begins at conception.
The problem with this strategy is that it comes across as a bit condescending. It is condescending to believe that firing a gun will make heartland voters like you, in much the same way it was condescending for Dean to say he was going to start talking more about God – but only in the South. Pretending to share values or pandering to stereotypes will not win many friends.
Kerry’s statement about abortion is bizarre. He believes life begins at conception, yet still supports abortion. How is this possible? If life begins at conception, wouldn’t that automatically make abortion murder? Kerry might well be the first presidential candidate since the age of dueling to openly support murder. At least most pro-choicers claim to believe life doesn’t begin until birth. They are not, at least in their own minds, condoning murder. Kerry apparently is.
John Edwards comes from working class roots, but has become a millionaire suing doctors and businesses as a trial lawyer. His “two Americas” claim thus seems pretty ironic. During the primary he claimed that America was a wonderful place for the wealthy, but a real hellhole for everyone else (someone apparently forgot to tell this to the Haitians, Cubans, and countless others who risk their lives to get here).
Edwards is a master of rhetoric. For example, he frequently talked about children going to bed hungry in the United States. He knew this claim is ridiculous, and so did (and do) his opponents. If someone had truly wanted to challenge him, perhaps they could have asked why obesity is even more common among the poor than among the rich. No one dares do this, of course. If anyone had the spine to do so, they surely would be denounced for insensitivity.
Kerry and Edwards often denounce Bush for his handling on the war on terror, but they offer no real alternatives other than vague promises to “work with our allies.” They have yet to lay out a comprehensive plan for winning the war on terror, and most likely won’t. It’s much easier to criticize than to offer solutions. It is also beneficial to play both sides of an issue (both Kerry and Edwards voted to authorize war in Iraq, for example, but against funding it). That way, no matter what happens, once can claim to have been on the correct side of an issue.
Kerry’s choice for VP is a good news story, but ultimately it makes little difference. The only candidates who really matter are the presidential nominees. Who remembers Cheney vs. Lieberman in 2000, after all? Only the guy at the top of the ticket can win an election.
- John Brown (www.johnnorrisbrown.com) is a senior in political science at the University of Tennessee @ Knoxville. Contact him at johnnyb325@aol.com. This column originally appeared in the July 13, 2004 edition of The Daily Beacon, entitled "Choice of Edwards inconsequential."