Edwards And Poverty: The ‘Consequence of the Consequence’ Concept

This quote from John Edwards illustrates the need for all of us to look past the obvious in choosing a candidate. Too many activists appear to already be making choices without carefully examining the Authenticity, Character, Experience and ability to Govern of all the candidates. [When have you heard the issue of Goverance discussed?] This is especially important with the idiotic front loaded Primary system in play this year.

John Edwards, for example, has taken a few hits in the last few days beause of his personal wealth. This is an illustration that if you don’t think about the ‘consequence of the consequence‘ you can miss the substance of a situation.

The ‘consequence‘ of his career was wealth. The ‘consequence of the consequence‘ is that he has the stage and ability to speak out for those that haven’t achieved his level of abundance. Anyone who took a shot at him because of his wealth never examined the consequence of his success. He says it differently:

“Would it have been better if I had done well and didn’t care?”

— John Edwards, quoted by the AP, on why it’s wrong to say his wealth makes him less credible as an advocate for the poor.

Almost any Democrat that gets the nomination will have the full weight of the Party behind him/her. I don’t worry about the General Election. I worry about the idiotic nomination process that has been put into play this year. It’s my belief that good people, good experience and good policy initiatives are being lost in the process. We would all do well to wait a bit before rolling the dice with one of the obvious players and given some of the ‘not obvious’ players a fair hearing.

Bookmark and Share

Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Edwards And Poverty: The ‘Consequence of the Consequence’ Concept

  1. Nick says:

    Good points Stuart. WHile some of the hits Edwards has been taking are from opposing campaigns are to be expected, most of this “he’s wealthy what does he know about being poor” is being doled out by economically conservative media types (not just Limbaugh but even Matthews, Russert, et.al) who have NO interest in helping the poor at all-and as members of the $200,000 and up salary club, don’t want to pay higher taxes.
    They pulled the same stuff on Kerry in 2004 and they’re doing the same in 2008 when he raised issues of economic justice/fairness and are doing the same to Edwards know-just as they would to any presidential candidate who raises these issues and sounds like a credible critic (e.g. Kerry, Edwards, Gore, etc.)

  2. Jesse Monk says:

    Perhaps the ‘obvious players’ and ‘not obvious players’ would stand on similar ground if the media simply exercised an unbiased reporting paradigm. For the media, it is about the money they make through viewership, not about ‘fair and balanced’ reporting. Most media would be well served to consider the consequence of their own consequences.