Will John Edwards Connect the Dots?

Sandy Levinson

John Edwards is not my candidate (as of last week, I've come off the fence in favor of Obama). But there is much I admire in Edwards's campaign, including his willingness to talk about the class structure and the de facto class war that the Bush Administration has all too successfully carried out the past seven years. And I was struck by one of his comments in the recent debate in Las Vegas. Criticizing Hillary Clinton, Edwards said, " ..she says she will bring change to Washington, while she continues to defend a system that does not work, that is broken, that is rigged and is corrupt; corrupted against theinterest of most Americans and corrupted...and corrupted for a very small, very powerful, very well-financed group ." I think this is a bit over the top, but not much. Needless to say, though, I'd be far happier (and might even switch candidates) if Edwards were willing to take the essential next step and note that the system is not so much "corrupt"--if by that we mean an emphasis on charcter deficiencies and consciously selling out to "small, very powerful, very well-financed group[s] ," like, I'm sure some of Edwards's detractors would say, the American Trial Lawyers Association--but, rather, is truly "rigged . . . against the interest of most Amercans" because of the deficiencies of our constitutional structures themselves. (It was never intended to operate in the "interest of most Americans," who, at the time, were some combination of slaves, women, and decidedly unmonied.") If Edwards had been running for office 100 years ago, the odds are relatively high that he would have articulated a constitutional critique along with his more standard-form political one. Both Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt, to name the most dramatic examples among the highest of "respectable" politicians, were more than willing to take on the Founders--or, more to the point, to say, altogether correctly, that the most important thing they taught us was the necessity to respond to exigencies and support change in basic structures (the monarchy in 1776, the Articles of Confederation in 1787) .

I suppose it would be just too unorthdox, given the ridiculous veneration accorded the Constitution, for Edwards to take the next step and move toward constitutional critique. I note, though, that it would have one virtue (beyond acceptance of my own views): It would move away from the quasi-conspiratorial overtones of his current critique and toward a much more fundamental discussion that requires no lambasting of Hillary Clinton (whom I would be more than happy to vote for, just as I would happily vote for Edwards even though I prefer Obama to both), but, instead, a frank recognition that the system established in 1787 works to defeat most fundamental changes unless the stars are aligned in literally once-in-a-generation accord.
Why doesn't Edwards lead a discussion of the presidential-veto system, which has almost the sole function of stifling change that is desired by a majority as represented in Congress? (Some of this change, obviously is unwise, but, overall, it would be extraordinarily difficult to show that we have so benefited from warding off unwise changes as to justify the costs of accepting all sorts of wise changes that have also been torpedoed by presidents.) Presumably, he is looking forward to being able to exercise the veto power himself should he be elected. But wouldn't it be refreshing if he would ask exactly why he or any other president SHOULD have that power, which works primarily as part of the "rigging" that justifiably turns most Americans away from politics because they correctly believe that elections rarely matter with regard to truly important issues.

And, needless to say, I would be almost as elated if CNN, which saw fit to prime a student to ask the quite likely next President of the United States if she prefers diamonds or pearls--I suppose there is no suitable underwear question that can be asked Sen. Clinton analogous to the "boxers or briefs" question directed at her husband in 1992--might actually have the wit to have one of its many pundits, currently eager only to generate a food fight among those who would lead us, ask the candidates what they really think about the Electoral College, placement of limits on the pardoning power, life tenure for federal judges, and the like. Indeed, I'd be interested to know what the Democratic candidates think of the provision in the Constitution that is the sole reason that Arnold Schwarzenegger is not now one of the leading candidates for the presidency. It is surely as important as the issue of drivers' licenses for illegal aliens. Do they believe in second-class citizenship (which is the only kind given Schwarzenegger) of not? But such questions require taking the Constitution (and the politics it generates) seriously, which Wolf Blitzer (and all other TV personalities) are incapable of doing. I continue to be angry at Jim Lehrer, usually a fine journalist, for his utter and completely disgraceful failure to ask either George W. Bush or John Kerry a single question about Abu Ghraib or torture in the first debate of the 2004 election. I'm no happier at the abysmal examples presented by Blitzer, Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, and other such figures at present.
Posted 9:09 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]