Dan Balz's Take
The Anti-Establishment Edwards
John Edwards and Barack Obama are using different rhetoric to try and capture the mantle of the change candidate. (AP).
Can ideas move voters? That is the theory John Edwards began testing once again today with his speech in Iowa about taxing the wealthy and providing new tax breaks for the middle class.
Edwards's speech was the latest in a series this year designed to lay claim to being the boldest Democrat in the presidential field. He was first out with a universal health care plan. He spent three days last week elevating the issue of poverty to the 2008 agenda. Today he returned to a theme that was central to his first campaign: turning two Americas into one.
Almost exactly four years ago, Edwards delivered a speech at Georgetown University laying out his ideas about how to change the tax code. The principal theme in that speech and today's was identical. The tax code has been unfairly skewed to reward wealth rather than work and needs to be changed.
Edwards would put the balance where he says it belongs, by forcing the wealthy to pay more and giving strapped middle-class families new ways to save, buy homes and send their children to college.
But a comparison of the two speeches illustrates how this former senator has retooled himself as a Washington outsider and a scourge of the capital's governing class. Four years ago his principal target was President Bush and what he referred to as the corporate swindlers. Today his target was the entire Washington establishment.
In that earlier speech he referred to himself as part of the Washington power structure. Today he has nothing but contempt for those in the capital. Twelve times he mentions Washington -- all in a negative context. "Washington is broken... Washington puts Wall Street before Main Street... The powerful "scratch Washington's back and Washington scratches theirs."
That kind of rhetoric crowds Barack Obama, who is seeking the mantle of the fresh face who can shake up the political system. Both aim their criticism at a political system they argue is dominated by corporate interests and lobbyists; both promise to sweep the capitol clean -- but with a difference. Edwards offers a pugnacious pledge to fight and fight and fight some more; Obama offers a gentler and more uplifting call for citizens to help him transform the very nature of our politics.
In today's speech, Edwards also sent an elbow in the direction of Hillary Clinton -- or at least her husband's governing strategy during his second term. "We can't triangulate our way to big change," Edwards said in his prepared text. "We can't compromise our way to big change. We need to lead our way to big change."
Many of the proposals offered by Edwards today echo those of four years ago, but with more bite on the wealthy. Edwards would now raise the capital gains tax rate on the wealthiest Americans to 28 percent; four years ago he called for a 25-percent rate. Now as then he favors tax credits to help lower income families save money.
Having drawn criticism for his work at a hedge fund, Edwards once again called for raising taxes on hedge fund and private equity managers by forcing them to pay taxes on their earnings as ordinary income rather than as capital gains. "We need to end the special breaks for insiders," he said.
Packaged together, the tax measure give Edwards and his advisers a fresh opportunity to present claim that he is the Democrat who is doing the most to define a presidential agenda for the post-Bush era.
Will it work? Polls certainly don't show much correlation between Edwards's repeated calls for big change and a groundswell of support, either nationally or in most of the early states. Only in Iowa is his base seemingly solid.
Edwards deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince argued that voters in early states like Iowa and New Hampshire pay attention both to ideas and to who is leading the issues debate. Prince said: "They notice the substance of the ideas and the leadership involved in offering them... Is that a pattern you're going to pick up in national polls in July, no I don't think so."
By January, he predicted, they will.
Others may be listening who can give Edwards a boost before then. Labor unions in particular are paying attention and some leaders like what Edwards stands for and the way he says it. Edwards is angling to win the support of at least some of the most politically active unions.
There may be another factor in all this however, one suggested by the candidate's wife in a recent interview. At the time there were 19 candidates in the Republican and Democratic races.
"Only one person's going to be president," Elizabeth Edwards said, "and 18 campaigns will have been about some person and accomplished nothing else. If he's one of the 18 - he certainly doesn't hope or expect to be - but if he's one of the 18 who goes home, he wants to have a campaign that accomplished something, that remains or lasts."
Moving voters is still Edwards's principal motivation. Short of that, he also hopes to use his voice to move his party. The jury is still out on both.
--Dan Balz
Posted at 12:23 PM ET on Jul 26, 2007
| Category:
Dan Balz's Take
Share This: 
Technorati
| Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Posted by: lauralion | August 31, 2007 12:47 AM
Wow Dan! what are you drinking? This was a very fair article about John Edwards.
He has our vote!
Posted by: annefrank | July 29, 2007 10:34 AM
gbb14 - John Edwards plans and solutions are for ALL Americans - not only Dems.
When Repubs pander to their base, they throw red meat about gays and abortion - clearly against some Americans.
See the difference?
Posted by: annefrank | July 29, 2007 10:33 AM
I wonder if Dan realizes his blatant bias. He refers to Edwards' leftwards swing this campaign as a "bold" tactic rather than one which is trying to pander to the liberal base of the Democratic Party. How often do we hear about Republicans appealing to the conservative base and the liberal media never says anything similar about the Democrats, this article being a perfect demonstration.
Posted by: gbb14 | July 27, 2007 4:49 PM
To ghdudley:
The point is NOT that anyone is jealous or envious of the rich. Nor is the point that we dont want people to become rich or unduly penalize them for wealth. The point is that the "rules of the game", ie the tax code and the advantages wealthy folks have in protecting and hiding their money through loopholes in the law need to be changed. Changed in a way that allows the shrinking middle class to keep up and have a chance at a home and college for their kids, etc...What Johsn Edwards is calling for is similar to an attack on the Robber Barons of the gilded age...Those who have benefitted the most from the boom times of the last decade now need to kick in more of the burden as times are tough for the rest. That is only FAIR and that is why John Edwards should be Presdident.
RJS--Minneapolis
Posted by: randy.snyder | July 27, 2007 11:46 AM
To ghdudley:
The point is NOT that anyone is jealous or envious of the rich. Nor is the point that we dont want people to become rich or unduly penalize them for wealth. The point is that the "rules of the game", ie the tax code and the advantages wealthy folks have in protecting and hiding their money through loopholes in the law need to be changed. Changed in a way that allows the shrinking middle class to keep up and have a chance at a home and college for their kids, etc...What Johsn Edwards is calling for is similar to an attack on the Robber Barons of the gilded age...Those who have benefitted the most from the boom times of the last decade now need to kick in more of the burden as times are tough for the rest. That is only FAIR and that is why John Edwards should be Presdident.
RJS--Minneapolis
Posted by: randy.snyder | July 27, 2007 11:45 AM
I am firmly behind Edwards; I just wish he would use the terms "CONSERVATISM" and "PRIVITIZATION" instead of "Washington" as the source of today's ills.
Posted by: mainetimes | July 27, 2007 10:24 AM
I found this article well-written, with a focus on the issues at hand, Edwards' policy proposals and their political ramifications. Thanks, Dan, for the balanced take.
Edwards has got my vote.
Posted by: wgc205 | July 27, 2007 10:20 AM
it is either a class revolution in this country or we vote edwards into the white house.
Posted by: HORNET12 | July 26, 2007 11:50 PM
I am an Edwards voter. It is clear to me that a class war has been going on for the last fifty years, and working people have lost the war. I have always voted my pocket book interest, and I will do the same in 2008.
Posted by: sperrico | July 26, 2007 7:51 PM
If one thinks the polls are relevant, then one finds a non-candidate -- or at least an undeclared candidate -- by the name of Al Gore more relevant than John Edwards.
Might attacks on the wealthy actually be preying on jealousy and envy? Too many of us who are not wealthy look at the wealthy and wish we had what they have, and we think how it is unfair that we don't have the means to do what the wealthy do and have what the wealthy have.
Sure, there are numerous wealthy people who get there at someone else's expense, often breaking the law to do so. There are numerous non-wealthy people who have broken the law, too, to get something that belonged to someone else.
Edwards would have us think that wealthy people want un-wealthy people to stay un-wealthy. But if you can prey on the misguided sense that it's unfair for someone else to be wealthy -- if you can enrage the voters by declaring that the wealthy have resurrected "Let them eat cake" -- well then, viva la revolucion!
The more government controls who gets what, the more dependent we become upon those who determine who gets what. It's a good way to stay in power in a democracy (er, republic).
Different subject: We should end these so-called debates. More effective, more telling would be the candidates having one-on-one meetings, where they would discuss their political and social and moral views and why they think that way, how they got there. It should be no different than two people talking about their views -- no attacking, no marketing gimmicks, no grandstanding. We could learn so much about one's civility and ability to really listen. I think the candidates would learn something about each other, too.
Posted by: ghdudley | July 26, 2007 3:54 PM
If one thinks the polls are relevant, then one finds a non-candidate -- or at least an undeclared candidate -- by the name of Al Gore more relevant than John Edwards.
Might attacks on the wealthy actually be preying on jealousy and envy? Too many of us who are not wealthy look at the wealthy and wish we had what they have, and we think how it is unfair that we don't have the means to do what the wealthy do and have what the wealthy have.
Sure, there are numerous wealthy people who get there at someone else's expense, often breaking the law to do so. There are numerous non-wealthy people who have broken the law, too, to get something that belonged to someone else.
Edwards would have us think that wealthy people want un-wealthy people to stay un-wealthy. But if you can prey on the misguided sense that it's unfair for someone else to be wealthy -- if you can enrage the voters by declaring that the wealthy have resurrected "Let them eat cake" -- well then, viva la revolucion!
The more government controls who gets what, the more dependent we become upon those who determine who gets what. It's a good way to stay in power in a democracy (er, republic).
Different subject: We should end these so-called debates. More effective, more telling would be the candidates having one-on-one meetings, where they would discuss their political and social and moral views and why they think that way, how they got there. It should be no different than two people talking about their views -- no attacking, no marketing gimmicks, no grandstanding. We could learn so much about one's civility and ability to really listen. I think the candidates would learn something about each other, too.
Posted by: ghdudley | July 26, 2007 3:54 PM
Wow. A fair article.
The 28% rate was chosen because it was the same as ronald reagan's
Posted by: brenmanjay | July 26, 2007 2:34 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
I agree with a lot of what Edwards is doing but I like Obama's gentel approach rather than Edward's fight, fight, fight approach. I really like Edwards position on taxes though.The idea of having the less advantaged families benefit from taxation rather than the wealthier families that benefit now would be a great idea.