Media Criticism

As a writer for CensorSpace, I came out quickly to endorse former Senator John Edwards in his bid for the Democratic nomination in 2008. This endorsement means very little and I don’t think that the blogosphere, whether liberal or conservative, makes nearly the difference that it thinks it does on politics. I feel it necessary to disclose this fact as I have vacillated on the available candidates in both parties in previous posts on Media Critiques.

I am coming out today to endorse wholeheartedly the candidacy of John Edwards for the Democratic nomination. There are many reasons I have chosen Edwards over other candidates not the least of which is that Edwards is an underdog with a detailed populist program facing the two-headed monster of Hillary and Barack. John Edwards has been releasing specific policies since the beginning of his campaign including a national health care plan and plan to deal with poverty that include ways to pay for these programs. His most recent policy has put my support over the top for Edwards over my next choice, “someone else�? followed by “third party.�?

Mr. Edwards is now railing against drug advertisements that help drive up the price of pharmaceuticals in the United States. You know those commercials for penis medication and sleeping pills? They cost money in prime time and that money goes back to the public in the form of higher retail prices. One of the former senator’s first acts as president would be to promote a two year moratorium on consumer advertising for new drugs. He would also provide the FDA the power to stop advertisements that are misleading or based on questionable evidence. It is no wonder that Edwards has a devoted, if small, following in states like Iowa and South Carolina.

I have been advocating in various publications for the regulation of drug advertisements since my days as an ultra-liberal graduate student in Wisconsin. Drug companies complain about the high price of research but they don’t seem to mind putting money into lobbying, advertising and hectoring doctors to peddle their drugs. Mr. Edwards has come out for things that I believe in like investment in education, health insurance and a sound foreign policy in recent months. The smear machine within the Republican Party, the Democratic Leadership Conference and the media has focused on expensive haircuts. It is time to get past media obfuscation to find the truth.

This will be the last time I write about Mr. Edwards in this blog until the primaries unless there is an incredibly compelling reason to do so. I will not be a shill for Edwards (beyond this entry, at least) nor will I attack other candidates on his behalf. I simply want to say that corporate media can be reformed for the better with John Edwards in the Oval Office. If that is a sentiment that is incorrect, then I will no doubt look back upon this post in upcoming months to cringe at my narrow mindedness. For now, it is time for change in the way drug companies, lobbyists and major political parties do business.

The recent passage of higher funding amounts for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program or SCHIP seems like a slam dunk for both parties. Democrats are able to put another aspect of their 2006 midterm campaign (improving health insurance to the uninsured) to bed and Republicans in the affirmative are able to put aside their stingy reputations for a good case. This bill is akin to a bill that promises computers to poor people or provides holiday decorations for every American. It is a slam dunk in a normal universe.

We do not live in a normal universe, however, and evidence of that comes with a threatened veto by President Bush. His proposal of $30 billion for the program was doubled by Congress in an effort to actually cover a large group of children. President Bush has forgotten that he has spent billions in support of the Iraq War, a missile defense shield, Leave No Child Behind and so many bad programs that waste American dollars. It is tough to become principled when you have been a rogue in a big boy’s suit for the last seven years.

I hope that some Republicans in the House realize that there is a political benefit to this program in 2008. House members are up for re-election every two years which means every step they take is scrutinized by activists. Conservative Republicans may not like increasing federal influence in health care but they do love children based on their pro-life tendencies and they do love to get re-elected. Support of SCHIP would affect their constituents and this bill is not some liberal boondoggle that would hand out morning after pills or free copies of Abbie Hoffman’s Steal This Book. It is time for a few Grinches to open their eyes to better government instead of rigid conservative dogma.

This week’s Economist is full of articles worth mentioning here. One, in particular, reveals how one candidate’s media image is shaping the whole of the campaign.

John Edwards, in an attempt to both distinguish himself as a candidate and create real change, outlines very specific policies in his speeches. Normally, candidates generalize the issues and offer a vague party platform in an attempt to gain votes. Edwards seems more interested in policy than politics, however. According to the Economist, “[h]e has grand, progressive, goals–to end the war in Iraq (obviously), provide universal health care, address global warming, eliminate poverty in America within 30 years–and detailed blueprints of how to do it all.”*

Even more amazing than Edwards’ bold move to make policy proposals is the fact that the other two Democratic candidates (Clinton and Obama, both leading Edwards in polls and money) are following suit. They’re not proposing as many specific policies, but the choices they make seem sometimes to be defined by Edwards’ position. For instance, Edwards has a comprehensive energy plan to “reduce America’s greenhouse-gas emissions by 80% before 2050 with a cap-and-trade system of carbon permits.” This is similar to one of the most radical bills in congress, which Clinton and Obama began supporting “soon after the Edwards energy plan was released.”

However, Edwards seems significantly more moderate than the two candidates leading him in the polls. He favors troops staying near Iraq to “prevent a genocide, deter a regional spillovr of the civil war, and prevent an al-Qaeda safe haven.” His health care plan echoes Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s. Ironically enough, Obama’s “paler version” of Edwards’ plan was criticized for being too watered down.

What’s the upshot? Ultimately, the Democrats are fighting about real issues of policy, and the political theater (while still in full force–Edwards’ speeches all begin the same way) is taking a back seat. The role of the media in this is substantial; the media’s portrayal of candidates has a calculable effect on the turnout of elections. For once, a candidate has decided to play a different angle. Instead of the empty platitudes of a “better America”, Edwards is offering real solutions to the problems facing the country. Even if you don’t like all of his solutions (I certainly don’t), you know what you’re getting.

I, for one, am harboring the (maybe vain) hope that we’re witnessing the emergence of a new politics. Right now, Edwards’ voice is what the left needs; all of the candidates are using his ideas. Maybe this year’s presidential battle will be more than the traditional theatric farce.

I’m hoping, but I’m not holding my breath.

*Source: “Man of the Left”. The Economist. 7/21/2007

Edwards, economist, Democrats, election, policy, health care, global warming