Dem candidates though history -- How do Kerry and Edwards stack up?

[Skinner]

I was just having a discussion with EarlG about this issue, and I'm kinda curious what you all think.

Many people seem to think that John Kerry and John Edwards are insufficiently progressive to deserve their vote in the General Election. That, of course, is a decision that only you can make. But which Democratic presidential candidates, in your opinion, were sufficiently progressive?

Below is a list of all the Democratic presidential nominees of the last sixty years, plus Kerry and Edwards. (I chose not to include Kucinich and Sharpton, because they are unlikely to get the nomination.)

How do John Kerry and John Edwards stack up against the Democratic standard-bearers of years past? In your opinion, are they more or less "progressive"? Is it even possible to make the comparision, given the fact that the country has changed so much in the last sixty years? If you were voting in those years, which candidates would you have voted for, and which would not have been sufficiently progressive to earn your vote? Explain your position, if possible.

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT (1932, 1936, 1940, 1944)
HARRY S. TRUMAN (1948)
ADLAI E. STEVENSON (1952, 1956)
JOHN F. KENNEDY (1960)
LYNDON B. JOHNSON (1964)
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY (1968)
GEORGE MCGOVERN (1972)
JIMMY CARTER (1976, 1980)
WALTER F. MONDALE (1984)
MICHAEL DUKAKIS (1988)
BILL CLINTON (1992, 1996)
AL GORE (2000)
JOHN KERRY (2004)
JOHN EDWARDS (2004)

EDIT: Changed thread title to emphasize the question I'm actually most interested in.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. LYNDON B. JOHNSON

wasnt he the war against poverty person?

ON EDIT: I would have voted for all dem candidates

[Skinner]

2. Don't forget

He also escalated the Vietnam war.

[sangha]

11. LBJ also killed many civil rights bills over decades

as "Master of the Senate"

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. since the name has been changed

i think kerry and edwards stack up very well against previous dem candidates and presidents...

[jpgray]

3. Interning the Japanese to a conservative Democrat with sexcapades

If people held these nominees to the same standard as they do Kerry and Edwards, no one would vote for any of them.

[Cuban_Liberal]

4. I would have to say Adlai Stevenson.

VERY liberal, strong on civil rights, etc.

[jus_the_facts]

5. we could use another FDR....and another NEW DEAL......

.....nobody will ever be that progressive again it seems...s'why we're in this mess now....the haves have it all again and the pukes strategery has worked beyond their wildest dreams...the masses are ignorant and truly believe gov't is a baaaaaad thing and a total joke.....don't see anyone ever being progessive enough to see gov't work again the way it did under FDR! x(

[katieforeman]

20. Edwards coud be our next FDR.

John Edwards will do for us what Reagan did for Republicans and what FDR did for us so long ago- define a vision and philosophy of government. Reagan had his "Shining City on a Hill." John Edwards has his dream of turning "two Americas" into "one America."

John Edwards articulates the rationale behind Democratic policies and ties them into a larger picture. This could help us win battles for a long time to come.

Also John Edwards defines poverty and race as moral issues. For too long Republicans have beenthe only ones willing to talk about politics in moral terms. We have to offer our vision of a moral and just society.

[Skinner]

6. NOTE: I just changed the title of the thread.

I'm mainly curious about how the current nominees stack up.

[edzontar]

16. What happened to Kucinich and Sharpton?

I know they are not polling so well and all that.

But they have supporters here, and I would expect on "progressive" issues at least, they would score light years ahead of either of the two Senators.

[ShimokitaJer]

7. The definition of "progressive" keeps shifting

From FDR's social programs to the civil rights movement and now to... well, to what?

I don't think it's fair to judge candidates in the present according to the standards of the past any more than it is possible to judge those in the past according to the standards of the present.

The candidates I view as the most progressive were the ones who articulated a vision for the future which increased the power of individual rights against the entrenched interests and who worked for that goal even when that goal was unpopular. I think we would all define the key issues differently, but to my mind, being progressive has to include working proactively for change rather than simply reacting to the policies of the opposing party.

[THUNDER HANDS]

8. different forms of progressives

Once can be socially progressive and fiscally conservative, while at the same time being a foreign policy moderate.'

Or some combination of the three in varying degrees.

Being too young to go back that far in history, I'd have to say the most progressive of all three was either Stevenson, McGovern or Humphrey.

But notice how all three didn't win the presidency.

[WI_DEM]

9. domestically

Lyndon Johnson was the most liberal president we have ever had--including FDR. LBJ pushed poverty programs, higher and secondary education programs, Head Start, Medicare, Civil Rights Act of '64, Voting Rights Act of '65, Open Housing Act of '68. He appointed the first African-American to the US Supreme Court--Thurgood Marshall. He had a strong environmental record. I can't name all the good legislation of the Great Society but it is impressive and it worked. By the end of the Johnson years the poverty rate was dramatically reduced and the economy was strong--relatively low inflation and very low unemployment.

Tragically, Johnson didn't listen to his inner self which knew that the war in Vietnam was wrong and unwinnable. Had he stayed out of Vietnam--Lyndon Johnson would probably be remembered as one of the greatest of American presidents.

I don't think Kerry or Edwards would stack up to this kind of progressive record. They are more akin to Bill Clinton who liked to pick and choose issues he cared about and all too often surrendered prinicples to cooperate with the GOP.

[Armstead]

10. Times change too much to compare

IMO the situation we are in now requires a basic acknowledgement of a modern fact of life (even if it is a repeat of similar situations in the past).

Our political system and economy have become far too concentrated in the hands of a handful of monopolistic corporations. The corporatre sector has gained power far in excess of its legitimate role in society.

That central fact drives almost every other issue. The media, healthcare, workers rights, income polarization, public cynicism and many otehrs.

Thus it is a different world. And it redefines what progressive politics must be about.

Truman was very progressive in some ways, and conservative in otehrs, and he dropped the A-Bomb to end WW2. JFK, for example, ran and governed at a time when the economy was prosperous and still had many companies, and when regulation was not a dirty word. LBJ was very ambitious in terms of attacking poverty and fighting for civil rights, but he also had a rotten war. McGovern ran against a war his own party had created. Humphtey was very much a social liberal, but he got caught in the morass of Vietnam too.

It is thus difficult to transplant any of these candidates to today. Personally, I believe both Dean and Kucinich are the ones who most understand what the Democrats most need to do today to deal with our current realities.

[jpgray]

13. Given your theory, it's a good thing we never fought wars for Standard Oil

:D

What we see today is hardly a wholly new and unprecedented power structure. Power has always been in the hands of the haves, much as we like to spin fairy tales to the contrary when we look into the past.

[Armstead]

18. True but it's been worse at tomes than others

I don;t know how old you are, but an old fart of 50 like me can remember how different power was distributed before the 1980's, and how the concentration of corporate power has screwed up so much, and eroded the average standard of living.

[jpgray]

19. I agree--there's an ebb and flow

People are increasingly complacent on economic issues because we believe the major battles are all behind us--few look to see the end of Social Security, for example, though it is fast approaching. Unfortunately, the other side doesn't rest after a defeat as we do after a victory. :(

So I agree with your points--I thought you were implying this situation was something wholly new, and that I disagree with. Sorry if I jumped down your throat. :hi:

[no name no slogan]

12. Let's put it this way

The 1972 Richard Nixon makes our current "front-runners" look like Ronald Reagan clones. Even Nixon favored a livable wage and universal medical coverage. To think that these positions are now relegated to left-wing "fringe" Democrats is simply pathetic.

It's really sad to see how far this party has slid in just thirty years.

[edzontar]

15. I would put them far below all of the above--especially Kerry.

I proudly voted for every one of the names there from 1972-2000.

The only one that gave me any doubts was Clintoin in 1996-after he Benedict Arnold-flipp-flopped on the "Welfare Reform bill."

All the others were worthy candidates.

This election will be the first where i really have to hold my nose to stifle the smell of corruption that rises from the likely nominee---the Iraq war supporting hypocrite Kerry.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

17. It depends on the definition of "stacking up" and the litmus test for

progressive combined with the fact that since neither have been elected to the top office yet, we can only really compare them to people who never got there.

We, of course, have a FAR different interpretation of progressive now. Would Truman, the guy that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki be considered a progressive? Kerry has advocated nuclear reduction and disarmament for his career...further he voted against Yucca Mountain which Edwards did not.

Johnson escalated Viet Nam but also created the "great society".

Far too many contradictions for the CURRENT interpretation of PROGRESSIVE....do we view Kennedy by his advocacy of civil rights or his race to space?

Do we view Johnson for the advent of medicare or for Viet Nam.

DO we view Truman for the Marshall plan or for his INTERVENTION doctrine?

Carter =Camp David or Mondale=the first female VP.

Compared to most of these Kerry and Edawrds would be EQUALLY progressive if we base it on the past.

Edwards stance on Iraq might get him compared to Truman while Kerry's stance on nukes, offshore banking and his investigations into BCCI and IRan Contra COULD get him compared to Roosevelt were people to take and honest look.

[blm]

21. But, wasn't it TEDDY Roosevelt who went after corruption?

That would make Kerry potentially the best of Franklin and Teddy.

I'd say he's most likely to be a mix of Teddy Roosevelt and JFK/RFK, but even more liberal.

[Blue_Roses]

22. Way before my time

but studied much about FDR and JFK---those a definite. I did vote for Dukakis and of course Clinton and Gore.

I got active in the Dukakis/Bush election and LOVED Lloyd Bentsen. What an awesome debate between him and Quayle. Quayle made the mistake of comparing himself to JFK and of course and Bentsen let him have it (signature line) :)