We the Magnanimous: The fleecing of Christopher Beam (and America)
John Edwards is out for John Edwards. Not unity among Democrats. Not middle class white people. Not Barack Obama. Just John Edwards. And Christopher Beam should know this.
Bear with me...
An elected official, the last I checked, was chosen by the people to represent the people and act with the people’s interest in mind. When did that definition cease to carry any weight? When did elected officials begin to act with strictly self-serving interests in mind? When did idealism - a principle this nation was founded on - become a dream brushed to the side, and those who believe in it called naive or romantic?
Ironically, I’m reminded of the beating-drum mantra of my Republican counterpart / officemate. He repeats endlessly that liberals live in a fairy tale world they hope to create as opposed to the world that really exists. All I can say is, the only way to make change or progress is to envision a future that is different, and not be bogged down with the present at all times. But I digress.
More importantly when did the American public begin to accept this self-serving political behavior as normal and allow it go on without so much as a peep? Not only that, but now those with the power to speak to a mass audience - professional reporters and editorialists - make arguments defending this egoistic behavior! How does anyone expect the youth of this country to start caring about the political landscape of the nation when such blatant self-serving behavior is encouraged in the media?
Last week, we linked to a Trailhead blog entry written by Christopher Beam from Slate Magazine. It is, in short, a total embarrassment. In it, Beam espouses the importance of John Edwards endorsement of Barack Obama. He implies throughout his superficial piece - the potentially racist nature of it aside for a moment - that this endorsement is important because it reassures hard-working white America that Obama is a safe choice and that the moment has arrived for the party to unite now that the nominee is chosen. Now that the nominee is chosen. This is part of, no, the crux of this problem. Now Edwards chooses Obama. Now. Why now?
The race is all but decided. Like it or not, Obama will be the Democratic nominee. The final nail was put in the Clinton coffin on May 6 when her margin of victory in Indiana - a state she needed to win with a sizable margin - turned out to be only 2%. That was the end of the race. Why she continues to run, I’m not necessarily sure, but you couldn’t find anyone outside of her camp saying that she had a chance to win the nomination after the results of Indiana came in. Even Clinton-ite James Carville owned up. The race was over and the battle was won. By Barack Obama.
With the winner apparent, it’s no secret that all major Democratic political members will endorse and support the nominee - irregardless of whoever it turned out to be. Just as Republican politicos are rallying behind McCain as he battles for the presidency. And when you think about it, this makes sense. What really grinds my gears though (as Peter Griffin would say) - and this is my point - is that a large handful of Democratic superdelegates and power players waited to declare their support until the race was decided. Any endorsement after a victor is determined rings completely hollow. Everyone knows you support the victor when the victor is clear. It’s not like Bill Richardson would have supported McCain (or no one) over Clinton just because he supported Obama. Richarson dropped out, picked his opinion of the "next best" candidate (Obama) and, if his pick would have been wrong, then he would have gotten in line with the rest of the Democrats behind Clinton. But at least he would have tried to have a voice.
John Edwards had no voice in this process, until it suited his political career. He, along with a great number of superdelegates, delayed in declaring support for either candidate for what I see as strictly selfish reasons. They are hiding behind the thin veil of "We don’t want to affect the outcome of the race." Edwards delayed until a winner was secure because he hopes to be a VP candidate for whoever wins and he did not want to support a potentially losing candidate and take himself out of the running to be the VP of the other candidate. Any endorsement ex post facto is an exercise in the fleecing of America. We’ve had the wool pulled over our eyes. But what’s most sickening is that we pretty much know it and accept it. The coward journalism that Beam is slinging swallows whole the bullshit reasons behind the Edwards endorsement. He defends an indefensible position of suck-up politics, where a person waits to find out exactly who he/she needs to be sucking up to in order to get their piece of the pie.
The truth of the matter is that we will never know who Edwards truly supported in this race because he was too self-serving to man up and say it to the nation when it mattered. As opposed to Bill Richardson who, early on, went against his close friends, the Clintons, and forcefully supported Obama. Richardson is out for Obama. And Edwards is out for Edwards. Guess what, Beam? The nation needs to know this. Kentucky needs to know it.
You are claiming that Edwards brings white credibility to the Obama campaign because he swings a measly 7% of the vote - after he dropped out of the race - in a state that is predominantly white and heavily against Obama. Sorry, but when you are getting waxed at a greater then 2.5-1 clip in West Virginia, 7% isn’t doing anything for you. That 7% is only making it a 2-1 waxing in Kentucky. And most likely that 7% voted for a drop-out just to vote for a Caucasian male candidate, ignoring the fact that he was no longer in the race. Not really something to hang your hat on. Yet for some reason that is what Beam is trying to sell us.
The fact of the matter is, Edwards and many superdelegates are in it just for themselves. I know it. You, Chris Beam, should know it. Many people know it And many more should know it. This entire endorsement joke just reinforces it. For some reason we’ve all, Beam especially, accepted the role of sheep, willingly accepting fabricated reasoning as to why this pseudo-endorsement may actually be important. We have, Beam especially, given up our own common sense for the sake of appearances and for another’s delusion of self-importance. As a friend of mine has said, "How very magnanimous of us all.” Especially Christopher Beam.
Related Reading
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: We the Magnanimous: The fleecing of Christopher Beam (and America).
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.memeticians.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/320
Nice article bro.
Also, your use of the word "Irregardless" brought me back to the time in our old apt. that I believe Tim, you and I and maybe others were debating if that was an actual word. Good Times! Here is the dictionary.com defintion:
Irregardless - is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. It was probably formed on the analogy of such words as irrespective, irrelevant, and irreparable. Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis. Irregardless first appeared in the early 20th century and was perhaps popularized by its use in a comic radio program of the 1930s.
In summation of, I think, the three of our opinions on this:
Doing something after polling - which is seeking advice from the country, albeit a small sample - can (and most likely does) mean that you are not doing this action in self-interest.
Bush could care less about the public, and I would say that if Edwards would have polled people to see if they wanted him to come out with his backing for Clinton or Obama, MOST LIKELY they would have said, "Yes, John, tell us who you like."
So polling before acting (acting with the public interest in mind, which MAY be in your interest) and acting in complete self-interest - as we believe Edwards did - are not really synonymous, in my honest opinion. They are, maybe, more like opposites.
Stan,
Thanks for commenting and asking. I think your statement of "I guess you will have liked Clinton, who did nothing without consulting polls and despise bush who never consults polls" is a blanket statement, generalizing both Presidents' terms. I will address your question, however, as best as I can.
I am a Democrat, but a new democrat at that, newly registering as such within the past year. I have spent the past few years registered as an independent and a member of Green Party. I have been raised to think independently regardless of party line. My father, a Republican, has voted for Clinton twice and John Kerry, just to provide example. It was not until Senator Obama announced his intentions to run for President did I register as a Democrat.
When Clinton was elected president, I was in the 7th grade and 11th grade, respectively, so my opinion is, well, immature. I like him, but I can't really point out what policies of his I approved of or didn't. I do know two things, though, our economy was surging when was President. His foreign affairs are another thing; what a nightmare.
Bush's presidency has just been a flat-out disaster. He is a pawn that has been manipulated by those behind closed doors within political agendas. Everything he has touched, politically or in business, has been a failure. I have no idea how he was elected in the first place.
As far as polls are concerned, in my eyes, they needed to be used wisely. They can be consulted in decision making, but should not be the sole basis of decision. Ignoring them is foolish as well. A middle ground must be made. However, foresight in the decision-making process will ultimately lead to positive polls.
gerard - spot on article, great job. edwards' move was cowardly and i think you captured totally by calling it hollow.
i wanted to ask joe a question: correct me if i am wrong, but i am assuming you have a democratic propensity (by virtue of saying you like edwards). further you say "I want a leader in office who put themselves out there and stand up for what they believe in, not wait to see what the American public wants." can i have your thoughts on 2 of presidents clinton and gw bush according to your above statement. i guess you will have liked clinton, who did nothing without consulting polls and despise bush who never consults polls.
This is exactly why I told my bro last week that I would rather see an Obama/Richardson tickets as opposed to an Obama/Edwards ticket any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Which is a shame, because I like John Edwards. But, when push comes to shove, I want a leader in office who put themselves out there and stand up for what they believe in, not wait to see what the American public wants.
On the same note, Clinton vowing to stay until the bitter end is completely self-serving. While her persistence has been admirable, her stubbornness has left a bad taste in my mouth, and it's evident that she only has her own personal goals in mind. She needs to hang it up, and quick, before she embarrasses herself and the Democratic party in the process.
The never-say-die attitude works in sports, not in politics; especially when an entire country is at stake.
Well done, Gerard.