Why Edwards Creeps Me Out

SEE UPDATE BELOW

I can put it in three succinct words: phony demagogic populism. It's a form of populism that is as dangerous as it is ill-informed. It stokes class warfare as a means to secure electoral victory, but in doing so it trashes the very foundations of the American formula and asserts, contrary to all evidence, that we live in an inherited aristocracy and that those are get ahead are neither smart nor diligent but only lucky and well born.

That is the European view, where large numbers consistently claim that luck and birth matter more to success than hard work and skill. In poll after poll after poll, this difference in attitude is confirmed. In Europe, that attitude serves to justify an oppressive redistributionist welfare state, which further penalizes initiative and hard work. The mainstream of the Democratic party, represented by centrists such as the Kennedy's, Johnsons and Clintons, has never bought into this attitude.

Trying to import Edward's brand of grasping envy into the American political mainstream is a disturbing development, especially coming from someone who made enormous wealth by exploiting the weak-mindedness and emotional vulnerability of juries in medical malpractice suits -- an infamous racket. Here is Edwards' version of wealth in America:

"(Bush) comes from a world where wealth is largely inherited, not earned. That is not the world I come from. ... The difference between George Bush and John Edwards is, while he honors and respects only wealth, I honor and respect hard work. I honor and respect responsibility. I believe in opportunity. He's about building barriers and closing doors; I'm about exactly the opposite. I want to knock barriers down. I want to open doors."

And here is William F. Buckley's eloquent and spot on retort:

There are 2 million Americans who, on the income scale, are members of the upper class. It has been estimated that about 80 percent of these made their way to affluence by hard work, good luck, and a willingness to participate in a competitive economy. You'll find just as many descendants of Henry Ford and John D. Rockefeller struggling to stay afloat as descendants of Samuel Gompers and Walter Reuther. Eighty percent of American millionaires are first-generation wealthy.

I actually posed this question to an American Government class last week. The American synthesis of liberty and equality has always hinged on mobility. I asked them where the grandchildren of the Rockefeller's and Kennedy's are today. The answer is they are in the workforce. Sure, they may have gotten good educations and good jobs, but kids from middle America can as well. I told them that our university sends dozens of graduates to Harvard every year to study law, business and various other graduate programs. If you have the talent and apply yourself at a good state university, you can attend any graduate program you like.

That is the message we should be sending to America's middle class, lower middle class and under classes. Edwards' message of victimization and envy is off key: it grates on the ears, sullies the soul and offends the intellect.

UPDATE: This really is my case in a nutshell. Tonight, in his concession speech in SC, he says this: "Our campaign, from the very beginning, has been about one central thing, and that is to give voice to millions of Americans who have absolutely no voice in this democracy."

Just what does he mean by this? "Absolutely no voice in this democracy?????" If millions of Americans have absolutely no voice, how can you call it a democracy? He isn't, heaven forbid, speaking for the unborn? Who are these voiceless Americans? Or is this just more empty divisive populism, and the truth is that these millions of Americans have spoken, and tonight they chose someone else?