The Zong

I believe the definition of a Progressive, in the political arena, is someone who believes that the purpose of government is to do for the People what they cannot do for themselves (to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln). I count myself among the growing ranks of bleeding-hearts who value common sense over blind idealism these days, and I really do believe that the Progressive Liberal, insofar as he or she wants to see this country improve after the next election, is the new sheriff in the Democratic party.

With no apologies to Jeff Foxworthy, because fuck that guy, you know you’re a Progressive if any or all of the following are true:

• You believe that a government that only serves the interests of the wealthiest of its people is worse than no government at all
• You’re pissed that there are more Americans without access to health care (around 46 million) than there are Canadians in the whole universe (33 million, all of whom do have it)
• You think that Lou Dobbs has a big secret
• You think big governments are sexy, as long as they’re big in all the right places
• You want to leave Nancy Pelosi alone in a room for 24 hours with 100 members of the Sierra Club. (The San Francisco Chapter of the Sierra Club)
• You understand what Howard Dean was screaming about

I’m offering up some opinions about the upcoming presidential primary as it applies to a few core issues. In the spirit of what I believe the American government can and should help its people out with, the most important issues to me are, by order of priority and reverse order of coverage:

1. Campaign Finance Reform
2. National Security
3. Education
4. Universal Health Care
5. The Environment

There are lots of issues, many of which may be more important to you, but these are, in my not-so-humble opinion, the primary issues facing this government in the nameof representing a people; issues that most people can’t go out and fix for themselves, with some exceptions.

Before I launch into this discussion, I should disclose that I’ll be voting for John Edwards in this primary. As much as I love Barack Obama, and as much as it pains me that I’ll be voting for a white man when I could just as easily cast my vote for a woman or minority candidate, I paraphrase Hillary Clinton herself: This election shouldn’t be about race or gender. This is true, and I believe Edwards embraces the progressive ideal more than either Hillary or Obama. While it looks to be shaping up as a two-person race in the Democratic party, I can only hold out hope that despite massive disparity in campaign money and media exposure, Edwards will somehow close the gap as his message gets out there a little more. It is for that reason that I’ll be looking at the three candidates’ takes on each issue, and will offer an honest opinion on all of them.

The environment is last on the above list of priorities only because all three candidates are pretty similar on it, and I believe it is the one thing that the People can probably address as well as or better than the government. Surely, I’d love to see legislation making it illegal to manufacture cars that get less than 100 mpg, but in reality, if consumers stopped buying cars that are so terrible for the planet, then the government wouldn’t even have to get involved. Before you start pegging me as a libertarian, I should point out that I’m still all for strict emissions standards, but I also really believe that nothing will really change until the general population of this country learns how to control itself.

That said, let’s take a look at our three contestants, and what they plan to do about the environment. As you’d probably assume, all three candidates have exceptionally similar platforms when it comes to energy and the environment. It’s kind of a no-brainer, I suppose, and all three have committed to reducing greenhouse emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 (Edwards was actually the first to commit to this), all three are for cap-and-trade carbon credits, and all three plan to require energy companies to draw 25% of their total output from renewable resources by 2025. In addition, all three are looking towards new global treaties, making federal buildings more energy efficient, and all three probably own hybrids and use energy-saving lightbulbs. John Edwards made his campaign carbon-neutral early last year, and I think the other two have followed suit.

I remember being mystified to hear that all three candidates are big ethanol supporters, although I’m sure it had something to do with the importance of the Iowa Caucuses. As it turns out, all three acknowledge that corn ethanol is only a stepping stone towards a larger biofuel revolution and not a real long-term answer. I hope they are all being sincere about it.

One difference between the candidates can be seen their support for newer coal plants. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both support “clean coal” technology, which in my mind is just a nod to the coal industry. The very term itself was invented by the coal industry lobby, but the truth of it is, no type of coal is actually clean. There’s a decent look at the rundown on clean coal over at grist.org. John Edwards has come out against coal plants entirely unless they employ carbon-capture technology, which definitely sets him apart from the other two in my mind.

Another major difference between the three candidates can be found in their stance on nuclear power. Obama and Clinton are both somewhat noncommittal on the subject, with Obama saying he’s open to it and Clinton saying she’s “agnostic” (no, really) about them. Edwards once again is the dissenter, saying he’s against nuclear power plants because of inadequacies in our ability to dispose of the waste they generate, a big deal for most environmentalists. Here are their three answers to the same question at a CNN YouTube debate:

Edwards: Wind, solar, cellulose-based biofuels are the way we need to go. I do not favor nuclear power. We haven’t built a nuclear power plant in decades in this country. There is a reason for that. The reason is it is extremely costly. It takes an enormous amount of time to get one planned, developed and built. And we still don’t have a safe way to dispose of the nuclear waste. It is a huge problem for America over the long term.

Obama: I actually think that we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix. There are no silver bullets to this issue. We have to develop solar. I have proposed drastically increasing fuel efficiency standards on cars, an aggressive cap on the amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted.

Clinton: I’m agnostic about nuclear power. John is right, that until we figure out what we’re going to do with the waste and the cost, it’s very hard to see nuclear as a part of our future. But that’s where American technology comes in. Let’s figure out what we’re going to do about the waste and the cost if we think nuclear should be a part of the solution.

Personally, I love the idea that one day we’ll be able to use nuclear resources to provide clean and safe energy, but once again, I’m with Edwards on this one: I think that until we’ve proven that we can provide the proper infrastructure for it, the environmental risks far outweigh its benefits.

Apart from these issues, there aren’t a ton of differences. Edwards and Obama seem to have a more detailed summary of the economic ramifications, and each candidate has his or her own little flourishes (gimmicks?), like John Edwards’ GreenCorps sector of the PeaceCorps, and Barack Obama’s phaseout of incandescent lightbulbs, but the bottom line is that this is a pretty easy subject on which democratic candidates to hang their hats. I know it’s kinda lame to say you were into something before it was cool, but it is true that Edwards was out in front on most of these issues, and was the first to outline his plan, many tenets of which are now being echoed by both Obama and Clinton.

You can find each one of the plans below. Read them for yourself and make a decision.

Clinton

Edwards

Obama

If Edwards loses in South Carolina on Saturday (which I imagine he will), there’s a possibility he won’t even make it to Super Tuesday. I guess that will make this series pretty much pointless, but a man can hope.  Next up: Universal Health Care.  Stay tuned.

- M.G.