I am perhaps more liberal than I articulate sometimes. For example, in the unfolding race for the democratic nominee, my heart stirs when Dennis Kucinich speaks, his ideas offering seeming solutions to the most dire dilemmas. My head, however, struggles with lingering lessons of the Enlightenment: rationality, pragmatism and democratic application. I know Kucinich cannot possibly win the nomination, let alone the Presidency, so I have to justify support for another. In that pursuit I have researched every serious candidate and watched hours of debates, interviews and even the late night C-SPAN speeches which regularly lose in the ratings to infomercials and the Weather Channel alike.I have worn Dean buttons, impressed with his near flawless record in Vermont. Unfortunately, politics includes more than intelligence and ability (look at Dubbya!). Dean’s recent mishaps have probably cost him the nomination. In the age of mass media, five minutes of foolery can incapacitate a lifetime of public service and noble deeds.
I have also supported General Clark, even donating crumbs of money to his campaign. As a student at tiny WCU, I was immediately impressed with a man who graduated first in his class at West Point before earning a masters degree in economics from Oxford University on a Rhodes Scholarship. Such a display of brilliance, earned through merit and not family connections or money, warranted attention. And that was not all: he is a four star general, won a war in Kosovo without losing one American life, speaks four languages, has been knighted by the British and Dutch governments, and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America’s highest civilian honor, in 2000 to augment his purple heart, silver star, and bronze star. Unfortunately, Clark is simply not a politician, and a presidential campaign is not the easiest forum in which to learn the art of social dialogue and public diplomacy. His minor, but persistent blunders, are not dissolving into new political talents as I had hoped and I have been forced to look elsewhere.
In harmony with the voters in Iowa, and a week later New Hampshire, I began considering the important issue of electability. The Democratic party as a whole seems to be reevaluating its image and the face they will choose to represent the party. With these concerns in mind, I watched Iowa select John Kerry as their favorite with John Edwards a respectable and surprising second. These two men are clearly the most electable: Kerry with his Mount Rushmore face, history of heroism and years of experience, and Edwards: the intelligent, young, Southern Senator with a positive message and a Clintonesque charm.
After some original consideration and plenty of input by political analysts on televison I have come to the conclusion that John Edwards is the best candi-date to confront Bush.
John Kerry is a remarkable man with heroic stories and an impressive record. However, he is from Massachusetts and will relentlessly have to fight the label of a “liberal northeasterner.” This misconstrued stigma alone, unaccompanied by his record, will nullify his candidacy in all but the most liberal southern states (those who only vote republican most of the time) like Florida, Arkansas and a blue-mooned Louisiana. The baggage of his 24 years in politics will go on to ruin him in those few states. Kerry would then have to solidify his campaign by monopolizing the northeast and west coast and could only win the election by then defeating Bush in the mid-west states lost by Gore in 2000 (West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana and maybe the Dakotas). The margin of victory would be razor thin at best and the election would utterly divide the country into a red south and a blue north as though it were 1861 again. When Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, he uttered the prophetic words, “there goes the South for a Generation;” two generations later, its still gone for the democrats.
The only way a democrat can summon a victory in the southern swing of the election is if a southern accent represents the party platform, as Jimmy Carter’s Georgian voice did in 1976. John Edwards has the voice and the message to win. He has won a Senate seat in North Carolina, no easy feat for a democrat, and relays incredibly positive and populist ideas. He has experience as a politician, yet remains a fresh face with a limited record for Karl Rove to dissect. Most importantly, he can win anywhere in the nation, and the Bush administration has to fear a competitive southern race as the greatest possible challenge.
Joe Scarborough, former Republican Congressman from Florida and conservative MSNBC analyst, convinced me most of Edwards’ potential. He described the Republican’s hold on the South as their dependable base from which Bush sneaked by in 2000 and expects to do so again this year. He predicted that if Edwards wins the nomination, proceeds to rouse the Democratic base in the West and North behind him and then upsets Bush’s monopoly on the South, maybe only winning his home state or another of the afore mentioned “liberal” Southern states, then he is nearly unbeatable. If the Democrats, united by Edwards, can redefine themselves in the South then victory could well be theirs.
Bill Casto is a student at WCU and a member of the College Democrats.