Good stuff Ezra. If any of you haven't read this:

Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, “Business Power and Social Policy: Employers and the Formation of the American Welfare State,” Politics and Society (2002) 30; 277-325.

You should go out and do so. Great stuff on the dynamics of business power and political change.

Wow, I love John Edwards more than ever now. I also like Obama's message too! Unfortunately, Obama seems to have a greater potential to win.

It seems somewhat logical that if the full power of the Executive branch can be devoted to favoring giant corporate and financial interests, and running Executive institutions in their favor, that this pattern could be either (a) not followed, or (b) reversed.

You know, things like actually staffing and funding food processing plant inspection departments and staffs to the levels which existed before Reagan.

I really don't think it's quite as complicated to wield the Executive branch power more towards the citizenry's interests versus corporate favoritism than it is made to seem.

That's probably why the Presidency is the grand prize of big money domination of the US political system.

Slightly off-topic, but this post brought to my mind one of the more shocking magazine covers for a Democrat to have courted, of this (or any election): Business Loves Hillary

That line about Edwards also jumped out at me for a couple of reasons. First, I'm saddened that so many people who write on the nets and seem to want real change, have not embraced a candidate who is advocating for significant changes in the power share in this country. This quote shows why - people are afraid that we can't do anything if we upset the "business community" Have we all given up on real change? It's not surprising that major newspapers are saying this, but lot's of "progressive" bloggers are setting their sights too low.

Second, and relatedly, it's not the entire business community that Edwards is after, it's the extremely select group at the top who can afford to buy legislators or executives and bend the course of this country to serve their finacial interests at the expense of our health, our finacial security, and the lives of our youth.

Nobody thinks an Edwards presidency is going to take back all the power that corporate interests now have. But it is time that the pendulum begins to swing the other way. The big money will always have a big influence in politics, one way or another, but it is a far, far better thing to have someone in the White House who gives a damn about the average joe or jane, rather than what we have now.

I don't understand how the other candidates are going to do better reeling in corporate interests. Because they don't use harsh rhetoric? What is The Register thinking?

If you don't understand the problem, there's zero chance you're going to fix it.

Edwards, perhaps alone, sees what's wrong. I'm willing to give him a chance.

Unfortunately, Obama seems to have a greater potential to win.

Obama may a greater potential to win the nomination -- although I sense Edwards is beginning to get some momentum -- but I'd say it's a real stretch to argue Obama has a better shot in a general election. Anything can happen, of course, but most analysis I've seen makes a logical and compelling case that John Edwards would be the strongest Democrat in a general election.

The troubling thing about the Des Moines Register piece, and the coverage of Edwards in general, is the implication that Edwards being "angry" this time around means he's no longer "optimistic." The two are not mutually exclusive. The problems of poverty and undue corporate influence over government that Edwards has focused on in his campaign are problems we should all be angry about. But he wouldn't be running for president if he weren't optimistic about our ability to confront and correct these problems.

most analysis I've seen makes a logical and compelling case that John Edwards would be the strongest Democrat in a general election.

Perhaps more importantly, the polling shows this as well. The Democrats will be making a big mistake if they don't nominate Edwards.

Heartily agree with these:

El Cid:I really don't think it's quite as complicated to wield the Executive branch power more towards the citizenry's interests versus corporate favoritism than it is made to seem.

GreenVTster:It's not surprising that major newspapers are saying this, but lot's of "progressive" bloggers are setting their sights too low.

Changes in staffing agencies and interpreting the laws and regulations can make a major difference for citizens, as George Bush's push in the conservative direction has shown.

But some things require huge clashes of power, and yet others will require significant changes in the law and judges who interpret the law. For instance: Corporate 'Personhood'. Laws and court decisions have given corporations standing as persons, but the Constitution nowhere requires or sanctions this.

Lobbying reform and public financing of elections can also weaken the power of corporations (directly or indirectly) to demand and get legal favors.

And yes, we can through regulation and laws counter the power of megacorporations (think Walmart or Citicorp) in our economy - anti-trust being a tool that has been recently much neglected but is very effective.

I'm ready for a Dem. president to once again, like FDR seeking reelection in 1936, to speak out and act against 'malefactors [evildoers] of great wealth'.

FDR's June 27, 1936 Acceptance Speech
[snip]
For out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital—all undreamed of by the fathers—the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service.
[snip]
It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.
[snip]
Throughout the Nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.
[snip}
For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor—other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.

Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of Government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.

The royalists of the economic order have conceded that political freedom was the business of the Government, but they have maintained that economic slavery was nobody's business. They granted that the Government could protect the citizen in his right to vote, but they denied that the Government could do anything to protect the citizen in his right to work and his right to live.
[snip]
These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the Flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the Flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike.
[snip]

FDR's 10/31/1936 Radio Campaign Speech:

We have not come this far without a struggle and I assure you we cannot go further without a struggle.
For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent.

For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

I agree its not the entire business community he is after just a select group at the top that can buy legislators or anybody but the trial lawyers association.

Politics requires a general language of understanding. He's talking about a broader concept about how power is distributed in this country, how risk is a lotted, etc. This isn't one person group of people or some conspiracy theory (that's the GOP frame for these discussions because they know if they label it deviantly like this then like good little sheep most Americans will follow). The point is more fundamental- it's about how we organize our society, how we look at it. Do we become so cynical that we accept, as most do including apparenlty the newspaper in IA, that the cost of doing business is putting up with the crap that's been happening in this country for the last 2 decades? If you think that we need to do business "this way" then of course you will perceive of Edwards argument as anti-business. Once you realize the point is "how we do business" then the lazy-think goes away.

I admire Mr. Edward's populist message. The problem is the messenger, not the message. It is going to be difficult to convince the American people to accept your populist message when you haved worked for corporations that evicted Katrina victims from their homes. It seems Mr. Edwards populist message takes a back seat to his personal interest. He fails to undertsand that the force of his example is just as important as the example of his force. One might claim many of these corporate leaders only do what they do because they want for themselves and their families the type of lifestyle Mr. Edwards enjoys. It might be hard to think about the little guy when you are trying to keep up with the Edwards and their big houses and $400 haircuts. Insurance companies make a killing on the fact that people need health care or they will get sick and die; while Mr. Edwards made a killing on the fact that sometimes those trying to help those in need make mistakes. I don't see much of a difference. I am sure that everyone Mr. Edward's represented was entitled to the settlement they recieved. Since they were entitled to all that money I find it sicknening that Mr. Edwards would take such a significant portion of what they deserved. Anyone who thinks this man is more electable than the other democrats is deluded.

I admire Mr. Edward's populist message. The problem is the messenger, not the message. It is going to be difficult to convince the American people to accept your populist message when you haved worked for corporations that evicted Katrina victims from their homes. It seems Mr. Edwards populist message takes a back seat to his personal interest. He fails to undertsand that the force of his example is just as important as the example of his force. One might claim many of these corporate leaders only do what they do because they want for themselves and their families the type of lifestyle Mr. Edwards enjoys. It might be hard to think about the little guy when you are trying to keep up with the Edwards and their big houses and $400 haircuts. Insurance companies make a killing on the fact that people need health care or they will get sick and die; while Mr. Edwards made a killing on the fact that sometimes those trying to help those in need make mistakes. I don't see much of a difference. I am sure that everyone Mr. Edward's represented was entitled to the settlement they recieved. Since they were entitled to all that money I find it sicknening that Mr. Edwards would take such a significant portion of what they deserved. Anyone who thinks this man is more electable than the other democrats is deluded.

JT - you lost me with the Katrina line. You are supporter of another candidate wasting my time and yours pretending you are interesed in Edwards message. You are interested in lying about a candidate- that tells me your interest is a lie.

Edwards is exactly what we need now--a fighter who fights for the rest of us--fighting not just to amass power or because the polls say it'll help get elected, but because we ARE the country, and we're hurting and not being represented at all.

And it'll be easy to implement what he talks about--just stopping the privatization of govt and the horrible "free trade" stuff alone will do wonders, and turning the focus on our issues and our domestic needs first and foremost.

One great reason not to nominate Edwards is EXACTLY what Jasper, above, counts as a point in his favor-- this old canard that you have to be a Southern Democrat to win an election.

That gets us, on average, much more conservative governance than we need. Certainly much more hawkish governance-- and Edwards, despite later apologizing, did deliberately murder 3,800 American servicemembers in Iraq.

Nominating and winning with a Barack Obama will mean that we will no longer have to listen to people tell us that the only way to win is to nominate Southern conservatives.

shorter last post- trade one tokism for another.

akaison:

Not really. Once it is established that non-Southern non-conservatives can win, I have no problem electing a Southern liberal every now and then. (Of course, Edwards showed his true colors voting for the Iraq War and they were not liberal, no matter how many speeches about big corporations he gives.)

But we have to establish the principle first. As long as we remain captive to the idea that only Southern conservative white males can be nominated by the Democratic Party, we effectively prevent any liberal governance in this country. We define the left end of the national poltiical spectrum as the North Carolina Democratic Party.

i am not sure how you t hink what you wrote is a rebuttal of my point. you are just willing to trade one form of tokism for another, and i might add without having any results that would be of any value to anyone other than the candidate elected. trust me no one african american is going to be helped by obama's healthcare plan as much as they would by edwards. you are simply using id politics to obscure this fact, and i don't care if you think the symbolism is of more value to us. it isn't. having good insurance and longer lives is. nor does it matter by the way that most AAs do not realize what obama and clinton are peddling isn't advantageous to us as much as edwards goals.

trust me no one african american is going to be helped by obama's healthcare plan as much as they would by edwards

Actually, Edwards' health care plan will harm ALL poor and middle class Americans, because:

1. It will force them to purchase insurance they can't afford.

2. Its alleged subsidies will be slashed to get the thing passed and then will not keep up with runaway health care inflation.

3. Because the subsidies will inevitably be skimpy, poor and middle class Americans (whose employers will slash health benefits) will be forced into the cheapest, cut-rate policies offering them the worst type of HMO care with denials of benefits, review boards, and bureaucracies ensuring that they never get the insurance they pay for.

4. The public plan in Edwards' plan will be slashed to the bone or eliminated, just like the Direct Student Loan program, to ensure that it is never a viable competitor to the private sector plans that fund campaign contributions to politicians.

5. Pundits will pronounce the health care crisis solved, and therefore, we will never have a universal health care plan that the government provides to all Americans.

In other words, blacks-- and everyone else-- will be far, far better off as far as their health care is concerned if John Edwards loses.

having good insurance and longer lives is

And Edwards will put you in cut-rate health insurance policies that will kill you.

And I can name 3,800 brave American servicemembers who not only won't have "longer lives", but whose lives John Edwards deliberately took in cold blood with his Iraq War vote, by the way.

Bottom line, though, I don't think my point is one of "identity politics". Rather, it is about the fact that we will NEVER bring the poltical system back to the left unless we stop being cowed into nominating Clintons and Carters and Edwardses, on the theory that only they can win.

Obama promises an end to that.

This has become a popular response with me and i feel the need to post it here- when you start to make shit up, you lose me. Because we know a plan that has no public option, provides no meaningful way to reduce cost, and conservatively leaves 15 mil (most likely peo of color) without insurance is far better. I am not buying what you re selling. The point is compare and contrast- not in talk in a vacuum.

I don't really care what you think you are doing. It's in fact what has been happening. I love when I hear from some white liberal for example how I must not "support black people" as a black person because I dont support Obama. because you know as white liberals theya re in a better position to judge that. the underlying elephant int eh room is that if obama were white and male or clinton were male most of you absolutely would not be making the arguments you are now making.

"Hey that is unfair, my favorite presidential candidate is black."