« Memo Wars: Iran From The Room Screaming | Main | Obama's New Politics, Exemplified »

Edwards: "Culture Of Greed" Has Taken Over Corporate America

26 Oct 2007 06:40 am

In Des Moines today, Sen. John "Anti-Hillary" Edwards caps a week of modernized populism with a big think policy speech wherein he contends that a "culture" of "greed" has "overtaken corporate America" and needs to be reformed.

The key ideas: a new plan to "restore corporate responsibility" and "balance" by "modernizing the social contract."

Policy points include, per the campaign:

-- Creating retirement benefits that move from job to job by creating universal retirement accounts and honoring pension promises

-- Granting shareholders new rights

-- Capping unfair levels of executive pensions

-- Modernize labor laws to give workers a stronger voice

Here are some excerpts:

In corporate America, where a broader sense of social responsibility once held sway, a culture of greed has taken over. Instead of treating their employees fairly, being accountable to their shareholders and contributing to America’s prosperity, CEOs act like their corporations exist just to build their own massive fortunes.

What does Washington do while corporate profits climb and the wealth of the very wealthiest grows – all at the expense of the vast majority of hardworking Americans? It circles the wagons around the people who are already doing the best. Instead of protecting the compact of equal opportunity and shared prosperity, Washington protects corporate profits and hoards prosperity. That is wrong, it is shameful, and it is bad for our economy to boot.
***
The system in Washington is badly broken. It used to be that big business hired lobbyists and lawyers to help them get around the rules. That was bad enough – today, they hire them to write the rules. And it works, because the politicians who are supposed to make the rules are indebted to the lobbyists the corporations hire.
In America today, we need action measured by conviction, not just words. In this election, you face a choice between honest leadership and say anything politics, between conviction and calculation, between strength and compromise. Let me tell you something: it takes strength to say no to the lobbyists and special interests – it’s much easier to just go along to get along. But I will never compromise my principles for the sake of politics – and I’ve been saying “no deal” to the big corporations, the special interests, and the lobbyists who work for them my entire life.

Comments (10)

I know you can smell that Edwards is going to close this thing, Marc.

The odd numbered year belongs to Hillary and Rudy.

The even numbered year belongs to Edwards and Someone.

What is Marc's problem with Edwards? He also uses negative tones when writing about him.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with what Edwards is saying about corporations.

"What is Marc's problem with Edwards? He also uses negative tones when writing about him."

As an Edwards supporter, I didn't see any negative tones in this post.

It does seem like Edwards would be a lock in the general election: we plays to the populist economic masses, his religious rhetoric sounds authentic, he could appeal to rural areas because of his background and populist policies and urban areas because of his progressive. It seems like a no-brainer if Democrats were going for electability. He would perhaps have problems on the national security front with Giuliani, but his appeal would be broad.

Democrats need to find something besides "populism" because it really doesn't work. For many good reasons, people turn off to it and get wary of being the chumps who will pay for everything. The Democrats need to give people a reason to vote for them. I think they are campaigning on fear - fear that something terrible will happen to you and you'll need these programs. If I was that afraid, couldn't I buy some kind of insurance and it would be cheaper to me than the taxes to pay for all these programs that it doesn't look like I need?

The reason populism USUALLY doesn't work is that the funding establishment doesn't want to be reformed, so doesn't support it, and it dies on the vine. But, if sufficient support for it came for the grassroots, bypassing the Corporatist route, it COULD win the nomination, at which time establishment support would kick in, to at least get a piece of the action. I have a feeling that Edwards could still be facing off against McCain come early 2008! Around 1998, a Republican candidate for governmor in Iowa, Jim Ross Lightfoot, was up in the polls and started having himself referred to as "Governor Lightfoot:. He hasn't been heard from since!

Edwards anti-greed screeds would be more believable if he practiced what he preaches. Instead, he lives in a mansion, has a vacation home larger than most of the taxpayers he sheds crocodile tears over, and lives the life style of the rich and famous. Sell what you own, give it to the poor, live the life of those whom you claim you want to help, and then come back in 4 years and tell us if your ideas are still the same.

John Edwards made millions of dollars suing doctors. He is now financially stable enough to start tipping on greedy people. dispicable.

It amuses me when people criticize Edwards for advocating for the poor while being wealthy and because of his wealth, his efforts are in some way less credible. Some of the biggest advocates for fighting poverty in this country's history have been incredibly wealthy including JFK and FDR. I doubt that anyone whose life was improved by their efforts complained of the size of the former Presidents' bank accounts. If those with power don't speak for those who don't have power, then how will change really happen?

It also amuses me that some folks say our politicians have to be poor to represent the poor. That is a prescription for no action being taken whatsoever for the poor. John Edwards took the rich folks to the cleaners because he beat them time and time again at their on game in the court room. And got rich in the process--I call that poetic justice. He knows hat to beat them. I take it that those that use this stale argument against Edwards are republicans afraid that he will win the primary, because he looks unbeatable in the general election.


Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.