"His Personality Cult is All Personality and No Cult."

I pick on John Edwards a lot, possibly too much, and have (luckily) been asked to explain why. OK, here's why: There's no reason for him to run and several reasons for him not to run. Edwards entered politics as a Clintonite Southern psuedo-populist. True, he never joined the DLC, but he ran a perfect DLC campaign for president in 2004. As Jason Zengerle put it "his policy proposals—including incremental reform of health care and micro-initiatives to help the poor—were fiscally friendly as well, showing that his populist heart was governed by a New Democrat brain." He never fought for universal health care in the Senate or in his presidential campaign, and now universal health care is the trump card of his 2008 run. It simply doesn't mesh with his image: it's like he's running OS X on a Macintosh II.

Another reason: His campaign is just plain funny. Like John Kerry, Edwards intuited from his runner-up 2004 run against Dick Cheney that he was a celebrity, a powerful thinker, a leader, all of that. Kerry tried to remain a celebrity into 2005 and 2006 but he eventually sucked it in and realized he would never be president. Not so Edwards. He and his awed campaign staff think there's a massive national fanclub for Edwards, that his wife Elizabeth is three miracles away from sainthood, that those other Democratic candidates are phonies who won't "show leadership." Sure, cults of personality form up around our presidents and around serious contenders—witness the grown men who talk about Fred Thompson like teen girls who just saw Pete Wentz darting for the limo from TRL to his hotel. But for Edwards?

In the American Spectator, Shawn Macomber has a hilarious column about Edwards' new fundraising gimmick: Supporters can bake a pie using the Bobbie "John's mom" Edwards' recipe and eat it on Edwards' birthday. Macomber:

What does one give to a plantation-owning multi-millionaire with his own basketball and squash courts, a swimming pool and an eponymous lounge who loves to raise barns for neighbors in his spare time? And don't even kid about hair salon gift certificates. Remember, Joe Trippi is back in the fight!

To Bobbie, the answer is clear: Give the man money. "We know everyone can't give a lot," she reassures the Other America, so long as we give in a meaningful way. To that end, the online form is comprised of three donation buttons: Give $6.10 if you would like to commemorate John's June 10th birth date. Or $19.53 to acknowledge 1953, the year Wallace Edwards "borrowed $50 to bring me and our new born boy home from the hospital back in Seneca, South Carolina." (Let your inner voice adopt a slow, Southern drawl.) Of course, if you're really dedicated to the Edwardsian worldview you'll pony up $54 -- a dollar for every year this planet has been blessed with his existence.

Poor John Edwards. His personality cult is all personality and no cult. One imagines Kim Jong-il sitting in an undisclosed hermetically sealed room somewhere in Pyongyang lecturing an audience of apparatchiks. "Can you believe this Edwards guy?" he squawks, lifting his sunglasses to show his own wide-eyed shock. "Is his ego out of control or what?"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Amen.

  • ||

  • ||

    Okay, you're going to have to explain to me how grown men squealing like little girls over Fred Thompson is understandable. As Sage says, at least Edwards is pretty but "Jowls" Thompson?

  • ||

    Edwards aside, is it possible to run for President without having a huge ego?

    By throwing your hat in the ring, you're basically saying "Out of 300 million people, I alone am most qualified for this job!"

  • ||

    Threadjack!

    Any chance y'all H&R folks could give us threads for each Daily Brickbat? Sometimes, I want to comment on 'em.

  • ||

    I can't stand the John Edwards campaign because he's short on experience and long on bullshit. However, to say that he can't lead on certain issues because he is rich is really, really stupid. Show me which candidate is actually poor. If all the candidates are rich, there can never be a non-hypocritical champion of their issues. I can think of no better indicator of how blindly partisan/stupid a person is than arguing about Edwards' wealth (or Al Gore's house).

  • ||

    One indicator of blind partisanship might be not understanding why Gore's house is an issue...

  • ||

    Lamar, one problem with the wealth of Edwards is that at the same time he is advocating policies that involve wealth redistribution. IOW, higher taxes to pay for social programs. In his case, he can comfortably pay much more taxes and still be quite wealthy.

    Not that this isn't the case with the other candidates, but from what I have read his policy proposals (so far) are the most expensive.

  • ||

    I understand why it is an issue. Redneck idiots get distracted by shiny objects.

  • ||

    Fine, we'll never agree. But all presidential candidates are extremely wealthy and all are on a giant ego trip. To single one out for these character flaws shows a lack of understanding or even a willful ignorance.

  • ||

    Lamar,

    There is no sin in being rich. Edwards sin is that he seems to honestly believe that the fact that he is rich makes him some kind of a deep thnker on things. Edwards strikes me as one of those people who has put out so much bullshit that he has really started to believe it. Rather than pat himself on the back for being a great orator after he unfairly wins millions for his client from a gullible jury, Edwards at some point started to think that he really did have all the answers and he really was anything but a bullshit artist. Good for him for being a bullshit artist. If he could admit as much, you would have to respect him. But he won't and I really think he started to believe that he is something besides just a bullshit artist.

  • ||

    It leads to personalization of the candidates in a way that makes George W. Bush look like a good candidate......we see where that piss poor philosophy has left us.

  • ||

    As far as any of these bastards go, nobody should contribute a dime until they use all but about a million of their own assets. If they think it would be so damned wonderful for them to be President, let's see the revealed preference!

  • ||

    John,
    I don't like Edwards because he is always full of crap. He's a sleazy trial lawyer. I worked in that biz for a few years, and it takes a special viscosity of scum to be the kind of lawyer Edwards was.

  • ||

    Regarding his riches - he's a typical, dime-a-dozen lefty hypocrite. Always calling on others to give (meaning - let others take from you) without opening his own fucking wallet first.

  • ||

    Hey, Lamar! Long time no see. You running again?

    I have no problem with wealth per se; but extremely wealthy people who demonize everyone between the upper middle class and their own financial stratosphere as being the wrong moiety of the two Americas really bother me. See also Kennedy, Rockefeller, Kerry, Corzine.

  • ||

    Let's not forget how Edwards got rich: screwing doctors out of money using junk science.

  • ||

    "John,
    I don't like Edwards because he is always full of crap. He's a sleazy trial lawyer. I worked in that biz for a few years, and it takes a special viscosity of scum to be the kind of lawyer Edwards was."

    I defended environmental tort litigation when I first got out of law school and I know exactly the kind of lawyer you mean and I agree completely with your assessment of Edwards.

  • ||

    Tell us the truth, Weigel. You have a big portrait of John Edwards hanging in your living room, don't you?

  • ||

    This raises the interesting question of what Edwards thinks he knows about wealth creation. Does Edwards believe, for instance, that large tort settlements create wealth, or destroy it? Does he believe government redistribution (or confiscation) of assets creates wealth, or destroys it?

    Edwards' wealth, so far as I have heard, derives from his skim and legal fees; does he manage his own assets and investments, or does he have a professional do it for him? Does he have any personal experience in business?

  • ||

    "I pick on John Edwards a lot, possibly too much"

    It's a safe bet Edwards has no idea.

  • Lupito41||

    "If we do the work ... that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again." Edwards 10/2004

    Tell me this guy doesn't have contempt for the average person.

  • ||

    You are wrong about John Kerry. You do not know him. He has believed that he should be president since he was about 18. His entire college career was devoted to training for the job. His entire military career was designed to burnish his presidential credentials. His entire life has been driven by the belief that he was entitled to the job. No matter what has happened he still believes that he should be and will be president. Paraphrasing Churchill: "we shall run to the end; will run in Iowa; we will run on the airways; we will run on the op-ed pages; we will defend my permanent candidacy, whatever the cost may be; we will run with more vanity books; we will run in 2008, in 2012, in 2016 and beyond; we will never surrender."

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    or Al Gore's house

    His house isn't an issue because he's rich. His house is an issue because he's a hypocrite. That has nothing to do with rednecks and shiny objects.

    Edwards got rich using a broken tort system that isn't remotely connected to justice seeking. Plus he thinks he shits chocolate ice cream, which tends to be a flaw more likely to be found in his social strata than others.

    As to your point about wealth and politics, you are correct about most politicians having some accumulated wealth. The rest of us have to work so we are precluded from the rigors of the campaign.

    However, my old roommate is a member of the House and he certainly isn't wealthy. Not hurting much neither, but not wealthy.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    I pick on John Edwards a lot, possibly too much

    Not enuff, actually.

  • ||

    The amazing part is they didn't mess up where people normally mess up - mixing the ingredients, putting too much of this in or too little of that, forgetting an ingredient, breaking the pie crust, etc. When they put the pie in the over everything looked fine - the part where they messed up was forgetting it was in the over. Assuming this wasn't intentional (and Prince's goofy grin when he asked what was burning, I'm betting it was), it's as if these guys forgot why they were sitting there and waiting. If the people advising Edwards and running the campaign have such poor short term memories and can't even remember why they've been sitting there for the last half hour playing cards, then it's a good think Edwards is too much of a snob to be elected.

  • Edward||

    In the end who's more rational regarding actual prospects of winning, John Edwards and his supporters or Ron Paul and his supporters? Talk about pots and kettles.

  • David McElroy||

    Nobody needs to "buy" Edwards' mom's alleged secret recipe for pecan pie. Just buy some Karo dark syrup and use the free recipe on the side of the bottle. :-)

  • ||

    Ok, I'm one of the few liberaltiarains on H&R. But Edwards is a damn fool and one of the worst choices for a presidential candidate I can think of. This ONE TERM wonder could not have won his OWN STATE and yet he runs...The Dems are particularly INSANE in the Presidential race, as Hilary has high negatives and Obama is 1. black (US not ready for that yet I'm sorry) 2. has a name that sounds like "osama" (his middle name is hussein isnt it? Yes many Americans are that petty) and 3. this guy has EVEN LESS EXPERIENCE THAN EDWARDS at winning major elections. The only hope the Dems have is to nominate Gore.

  • ||

    John Edwards may be pretty but he is no movie star, at least not yet--he has a few years before his girlish good looks start to fade.

    Fred Thompson has real Hollywood cred so of course Republicans will talk about him like, "teen girls who just saw Pete Wentz darting for the limo from TRL to his hotel". That's how you talk about celebrities. Who the heck is Pete Wentz? Sounds like something Britney Spears does by accident in her pants.

  • ||

    "Plus he thinks he shits chocolate ice cream, which tends to be a flaw more likely to be found in his social strata than others."

    I have had the privilege of working with this nation's elite for more than twenty years. I have also had the privilege of working with the nation's homeless for nearly as long and truth be told, the difference between the two groups vis-à-vis an inflated sense of self-importance is statistically insignificant.

  • libertreee||

    If we ever pass out as a great nation we ought to put on our tombstone, 'America died from a delusion that she has moral leadership.'"Will Rogers.

  • James Eaves-Johnson||

    Amen. Why anyone would vote for this guy is beyond me. A very rich white one-term senator who whines about the rich-poor gap is far less deserving than his opponents. I am convinced that anyone who picks him over Obama, Clinton, or Richardson is either personally racist or sexist or is vicariously racist or sexist by believing only a white guy could win the general election.

  • ||


    His house isn't an issue because he's rich. His house is an issue because he's a hypocrite.


    And his ilk ... Zombietime yall!

  • ||

    Plus he thinks he shits chocolate ice cream, which tends to be a flaw more likely to be found in his social strata than others.

    TWC, that's hilarious! I bow to the true master.

  • ||

    Edward,
    Everyone here knows Ron Paul has a Sunni's chance in Basra of becoming President. He's running to stand out and put his ideas into play so the candidates with a real chance have to address and deal with them.

    Edwards (a) has no ideas suitable for that kind of run, and (b) thinks he actually can win.

  • ||

    "His house isn't an issue because he's rich. His house is an issue because he's a hypocrite. That has nothing to do with rednecks and shiny objects."

    ....and hypocrisy is not a valid negation of Gore's arguments, hence, people who get riled up by Gore's hypocrisy are being duped into focusing on an argument that can never give them the superior position. It just makes them angry at libruls.

    I'm not criticizing rednecks, I'm calling everybody here at H&R who cares about Gore's house a stupid redneck who is easily duped by stupid arguments. Not you, of course.

  • daveinboca||

    Let's see. The droning intoning Goracle is succeeded by chronic flip-flopper Kerry. Just what does Pretty-Boy John bring to the table besides a soft drawl, well-coiffed locks, and a wife who's further left than Amanda Marcotte---the Church Lady.

  • Charles||

    But, Lamar, doesn't Gore's obvious rejection of the lifestyle he insists America must adopt as a scientific necessity indicate that even he doesn't buy it? And it's not even like he's telling people not to drink and then going on benders every weekend, or not to gamble and then losing ten thousand dollars in a weekend at the casino. It's more like he's a dentist who refuses to brush his teeth, or a nutritionist who eats nothing but candy and potato chips. He clearly does not believe the science behind his viewpoint is important enough to alter his own lifestyle. That seems to me sort of like a "valid negation," whatever that means, of Gore's argument.

  • ||

    Lamar,

    Even if you believe Al Gore's argument, presumably he would never give up his lifestyle in the name of global warming. Of course, the rest of use would have to give up our lifestyles or change them in the name of global warming while the privileged would do nothing. People's sense of justice and fairness is rightly offended by that.

  • moneyrunner||

    "Hypocrisy is not a negation of Gore's arguments." That may be true, but it's not the issue. Gore's arguments have been refuted by reputable climate scientists and even people who believe in anthropomorphic global warming are showing embarrassment by the hyped version of the effects of global warming that Gore is selling.

    Gore's home is simply a huge and deliciously funny example of the fact that Al Gore does not believe his own BS. Gore, Laurie David, Cheryl "one toilet tissue" Crowe and all those whose personal lives are making huge, outsized contributions to those "awful" carbon dioxide gases which are busy killing off the polar bears can't believe their BS for a minute.

    To NOT want to point that out when they and their supporters are leading a program that will sentence billions of people to eternal poverty and want is irresponsible.

  • ||

    "It's more like he's a dentist who refuses to brush his teeth, or a nutritionist who eats nothing but candy and potato chips. He clearly does not believe the science behind his viewpoint is important enough to alter his own lifestyle."

    Exactly!! Just because a dentist doesn't believe in the science doesn't mean that his teeth will stay healthy.

    I'm not sure I buy into Al Gore's arguments, but I think a lot of his suggestions are valid and should be taken seriously. I don't give a crap if he doesn't follow his words, I'm not doing it for him, I'm doing it for me.

    John, I understand your point. It is just another way to state my argument that we have made politics too personal. I doubt there are many Americans who can say "I hate that guys guts, but he'll be the best president." We're simply too vain to disregard our irrational emotional impulses. I'm ambivalent on Gore, and I positively dislike Edwards. But his wealth has absolutely nothing to do with his position on poverty. If you can't negate his arguments with valid counterexamples, then you lose the argument. You do some research and try again another day. Saying that Edwards is a rich prick does not negate his position on poverty. It just makes people hate Edwards. Trust me, there's no need to fabricate bullshit arguments to get people to dislike Edwards.

  • ||

    Yeah,

    If I honestly believed that flying in a private plane killed puppies, I might put my gulf stream up for sale and start driving or flying coach. The fact that Gore doesn't do that says that he doesn't beleive a word of what he is saying and is not worthy of listening to. That doesn't mean that there are not people who believe anthropomorphic global warming is real who are worth listening to. It just means Al Gore is a bullshit artists who needs to be ignored.

  • ||

    I agree Lamar that because someone is an asshole doesn't mean that they are wrong. Of course, I don't buy any of what Al Gore is selling global warming or any of what Edwards is selling on poverty regardless of my dislike of them personally.

  • ||

    The terrible three the Democrats are offering are all unaccomplished, unqualified buffoons.

    Edwards is probably the most qualified, which just goes to show how terrible the three of them are.

    When your most accomplished guy is the one who made his millions as an insurance company bilking trial lawyer, you have a pretty shallow field for Mayor of Topeka, much less President of the United States.

  • ||

    "Gore's arguments have been refuted by reputable climate scientists."

    That's a real argument. Thank you.

    "To NOT want to point that out when they and their supporters are leading a program that will sentence billions of people to eternal poverty and want is irresponsible."

    First of all, nobody's life is eternal. You're angry at Gore for hyperbole, yet you say that billions of people will suffer poverty for eternity. No BS there.......

  • ||

    I think you guys are confusing Gore and Edwards with your caricature of them.

    If Edwards was saying it was wrong to be rich, he'd be a hypocrite. But he isn't; he's saying that rich people should pay more taxes. If it turned out he was cheating on his taxes, then he'd be a hypocrite.

    If Gore was saying that global warming means none of us should be rich, or that the rich shouldn't use more resources than the poor, then he'd be a hypocrite. He's never said that.

    Apparently you think these guys are socialists who want us all to be poor, and then you screech at them because they don't measure up to that fake caricature of their beliefs.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Sounds to me like he was saying the poverty would be eternal - not the people.

  • D.A. Ridgely||

    Rule #1: Journalists can never pick on politicians too much.

    Rule #2: Readers can never pick on journalists too much.

    Rule #3: In case of any conflict between Rule #1 and Rule #2, Rule #2 takes precedence.

    Besides, when did "personality" become a synonym for "botoxed"?

  • Edward||

    On another thread, a poster called Ron Paul a paleoconservative. Are Ron Paul's ideas markedly differ from, say, Pat Buchanan's.

  • ||

    "Sounds to me like he was saying the poverty would be eternal - not the people."

    Can't have poverty without people. And by "people" I mean humanity.

  • ||

    If Jesus himself reappeared on Earth today Republicans would call him a "class warrior". That's what they call anyone with the temerity to even mention poverty today.

    The Edwards bashing is interesting. They say he has no chance, that he's a joke, but they sure seem to be worried about him. Bob Novak devotes a whole column today to how much Democrats hate him. Of course Novak hasn't called anything right since the election of Calvin Coolidge.

    I think they're worried he might actually stir up the rabble, and wouldn't that be ugly?

  • Edward||

    Pug, surely you mean Novak writes about how much Republicans hate Edwards. Republicans are a hateful bunch. It's the religion thing.

  • ||

    Thank you for an interesting post that does contain any of the usual ad hominems.

    There is clearly something about Edwards that drives Republicans nuts -- he gets more vituperation than other candidates who are further to the left or more likely to get the nomination.

  • ||

    Here's the Novak column

    Everyone is piling on Edwards because it's fun to put one foot on the dead carcass of his political dreams and pronounce that you brought it down before the maggots arrive.

  • ||

    Everyone is piling on Edwards because it's fun to put one foot on the dead carcass of his political dreams and pronounce that you brought it down before the maggots arrive.

    It would be alot more fun to put one foot in the ass of his sorry carcass - his and all the rest of the politicians.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Apparently you think these guys are socialists...."

    I don't think they're socialists - I know they are.

    That's what it's called when someone volunteers other people's money to "help the poor".

    Compassion extends no further than the limits of one's own finances. Beyond that, it's socialism.

  • ||

    Edward's is looking good in the NYTimes this weekend!

  • ||

    M.A.-

    I guarantee you that John Edwards takes advantage of every tax deduction he can to lower his tax burden. In fact didn't he set up a legal but slimy (from the rich should pay more taxes point of view that he's adopted) scheme to avoid paying about 32K in taxes?

    He could voluntarily give 3/4ths of his yearly income in taxes (since he thinks rich people don't pay enough) and he would still be very rich, he doesn't do it. That's why he is a hypocrite.

    He could have built a mansion for 5M and committd the other 9M to coats for all of the little shivering kids and food for all of the hungry kids in North Carolina. And with his powers of super persuasion, he could talk one or two super rich lawyers in each state to do the same thing and then there would no need for all of these extra programs he is touting. If only he and his rich lawyer buddies weren't so greedy.....

  • ||

    It is one thing to be rich and run for office. It is another thing to be rich and propose massive tax increases on others who aren't as capable of absorbing them without some decline in their standard of living. In fact, the wealthy government lovers are the most dangerous because they have no concept of how their policies effect real world decision making.

  • ||

    Here's the problem with Edwards, in once nice tidy story. From Bob Shrum's memoir excerpt at Time.com:

    Kerry talked with several potential picks, including Gephardt and Edwards. He was comfortable after his conversations with Gephardt, but even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else-that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before-and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again.

  • ||

    John Edwards formed a subchapter S corporation with himself as the only shareholder thereby avoiding the payment of Medicare taxes.

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005346

    And now he wants says the rich don't pay enough in taxes? I would say that is a little hypocritical.

  • ||

    Of course, the other lesson from that story is that still Kerry went on to pick this fraud.

  • Edward||

    Socialism is an economic theory, not a life style.

  • ||

    M.A.and Chuckie

    As a lawyer, he incorporated to avoid paying his FICA taxes- considerably more than 32K. And that hedge fund he is a "consultant" for invests his money in off-shore accounts- although his campaign spokesperson said that he is opposed to off shore accounts, and as president he will do away with that tax loophole- after he has made his money, that is. He is as phony as a three dollar bill. He is plastic man.

  • Edward||

    So John Edwards plays by the rules of the game. Amazing.

  • ||

    I recommend you read the NYTimes article in this weekend's edition. It is full of gems like this from page 3:

    On the left end of the continuum are the populist Democrats who tend to gravitate, at least at this early stage of the campaign, toward Edwards's candidacy and who espouse a philosophy you might call "predistribution" - using the tools of government to divert money from the wealthiest Americans before they earn it.



    Hah!

  • ||

    Sorry, I can't resist, here's one more from pg 4 (bold is my emphasis):

    What Edwards clearly cared about most, she [Ms. Edwards] said, was poverty. [...] Maybe it wasn't the most exploitable issue in Democratic politics, but if that's what animated Edwards, why shouldn't he just go out and do something about it?

    Edwards set up a center to study poverty at the University of North Carolina, which he visited about once a week. He traveled the country and the world - India, the Middle East, Uganda - and convened conferences of all the brightest antipoverty experts on the left. At the same time, he took on an assignment to lead, along with the former Republican housing secretary Jack Kemp, a commission on Russia policy for the Council on Foreign Relations, and he took a well-paying job at a hedge fund in New York.



    Way to fight poverty Edwards!

  • Paul||

    However, to say that he can't lead on certain issues because he is rich is really, really stupid. Show me which candidate is actually poor.

    Lamar,

    I'm the first to admit that the criticism isn't always substantive, but there's a gene, somewhere, deep down that automatically starts ringin' bells when a very, very, super-wealthy candidate starts hectoring me about "two americas" and how we need to do more for those who have less (always through more intrusive government, higher taxes and more regulation).

    By logic, Mr. Edwards should be mailing me a cheque every month.

    Rich white people spend waaay too much time talking about poverty.

  • Edward||

    black-box

    So by your lights, anyone who wants to fight poverty should be voluntarliy poor? Seems--how should I put it--a bit moronic.

  • ||

    A rich guy saying he hates taxes is the honest guy. A rich guy saying he loves taxes is the deadly guy.

  • ||

    Edward,

    The more people (rich / poor / middle class) who want to fight poverty the better. But if you make your millions, as Edwards did, and then turn around and propose radical surgery for the very system that allowed you to prosper you are being more than just very naive -- your proposals should be ridiculed and your motivations questioned. If you read the whole NY Times article (and the excerpts above) it's easy to see why so many people see Edwards' words and actions as disingenuous.

  • Edward||

    black_box

    Preposing radical surgery for a system that made you rich because you think the system is fatally flawed seems courageous to me. After all, it made Edwards rich, so why should he care? Those who benefitted from slavery but opposed it anyway were heros. Not that I think anything about the current system resembles salvery.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "It is one thing to be rich and run for office. It is another thing to be rich and propose massive tax increases on others who aren't as capable of absorbing them without some decline in their standard of living. In fact, the wealthy government lovers are the most dangerous because they have no concept of how their policies effect real world decision making."

    Oh I think they do understand the real world effect of what they advocate.

    I think there are a couple of reasons for their political advocacy positions.

    One is that they already have all the material possesions they could possibly want so they turn to other ways to stroke their ego. And one of those other ways is to promote the left wing ideology that will insure lots of public praise and accolades from the liberal media, liberal politicians and other assorted "important" people.

    The second reason is that they don't want anyone else to join the exclusive super-rich club. Once they've made it - they want to slam the door shut behind them. The policies they advocate will have no practical effect on their lives. Those policies are much more likely to keep someone from getting rich than they are to knocking those who already are rich out of that category.

  • Edward||

    Gilbert

    Like most demonizations, yours seems pretty overwrought.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Nope.

    It's an accurate assesment of the mindset of those people.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    funny stuff, well not really, Mr Pig

  • Edward||

    Ah, the certainty that only a bigot enjoys.

  • ||

    "Ah, the certainty that only a bigot enjoys."

    You seem awfully sure about that...

  • Edward||

    Kl

    Touché!

  • ||

    Actually, Dave, Edwards' campaign has a hell of a lot more substance and depth than this post.

    Who is it that's obsessed with personality and class warfare again?

  • ||

    Edwards is proposing high-tax policies that he personally evades because he thinks he personally will benefit from being elected President. He will get a high salary, lots of perks, and massive strokes to his ego that, to him, are worth more than the extra taxes he would have to pay under the policies he would deploy (or says he would deploy). But, since none of the rest of us would get elected President and share those benefits he would enjoy, we would suffer overall -- unless of course you think a completely unlibertarian agenda is beneficial to most people. And to cloak this extreme selfishness that would harm virtually everyone else in a robe of altruism is beyond contemptible.

    Of course, maybe Edwards has done the mental gymnastics necessary so he can rationalize all this and actually believe his own BS, so he can convey the necessary sincerity.

    Feel free to insert other candidates' names for Edwards' in the above rant. Cause he isn't the only one running this dog and pony show.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Ah, the certainty that only a bigot enjoys."

    Bigot?

    Hardly.

    Bigotry is hating somebody for a non-substantive reason - like the color of their skin.

    Hating a politician for who wants to raise my taxes to buy somebody else's votes by promising them some handout paid for by my money is perfectly rational and valid.

    Especially, as liberals like Edwards are wont to do they get all sanctimonous about what our "obligations" in life are and how much we "owe" to society.

    Seeing as how in actual fact, there's never been so much as one single liberal who has ever drawn breath on this earth in the entire span of human history who ever had anything whatsoever to do with me acquiring so much as one cent of the wealth I've got, I'm not inclined to look favorably on their attempt to lecture me about my "obligations". They are in no way speaking from any sort of position of superiority - moral or otherwise.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement