John Edwards

Published 05 Oct 2016

John Edwards and the Americans for the Preservation for Fundamental Americanism

As a former Senator, John Edwards has a number of qualifications to run for the Presidency of the United States. Qualifications alone, however, are simply not enough to make a successful campaign as it is critical to also have solid backing and support from organizations that can deliver votes. In other words, when an organization has a number of members or loyal followers, an endorsement or relationship between the candidate and the organization can prove to be quite fruitful.

In the case of the hypothetical organization Americans for the Preservation for Fundamental Americanism, Edwards would not be an individual who this organization would wish to associate with. Considering that the organization would require Edwards to agree with all their positions, the two parties would never be able to work together. Edwards is a leftist candidate and while this organization holds a variety of leftist positions, it also holds a number of far right positions. Yes, this is an inexplicable mix and that is why the organization is a hypothetical one and not a real one. However, it is the organization in question and as such a comparison between this organization’s stances on certain issues will be compared with Edwards’ stances on certain issues. From this, a clearer understanding of Edwards’ position on a variety of issues will be more clearly understood.

Edwards, for example, is a major supporter of abortion rights and has always been a supporter of abortion rights. This was a stance that he had taken when he was in the Senate and it was a stance that he had taken when he was a running mate for the Vice Presidential nomination with John Kerry. In the recent months that Edwards has been running for the Democratic nomination, he was long since established that he is a supporter of abortion rights and even backs the very controversial partial-birth abortion procedure. This is not an issue that Edwards has ever wavered on and, as such, would not align all that well with this organization on this particular issue at all.

Additionally, in a recent Democratic Presidential nomination debate Edwards staunchly put forth his support for legalizing all illegal immigrants in the United States. There are a number of reasons for his stance on this issue which include the fact that many illegal immigrant supporters find allies in the Democratic Party and the Party is also heavily backed by unions which are staunch supporters of illegal aliens in certain industries such as food service, etc. Because of this, it would be categorically impossible for a candidate such as Edwards who is strongly courting the liberal base of his party to switch positions and support any deportations of illegal immigrants. In fact, Edwards has long since been a supporter of immigration lawyer organizations (Edwards, himself, was a trial lawyer) and his support for these groups has been unwavering and will remain so. In Edwards own words, he has stated the following which was printed in the online news magazine The Hill: “We’re going to ensure that every single person living in the United States of America has a completely achievable path to American citizenship so that they don’t live in the shadows.”

In terms of “universal health care coverage,” Edwards would probably be a staunch ally of this organization as one of his campaign pledges has been that he would provide a universal health care plan for all American citizens. In fact, he has routinely criticized Hillary Clinton for “borrowing” some of his ideas on the campaign trail in regard to health care plans and ideas. Additionally, one could even go so far as to call Edwards a “hardliner” as he has even gone so far as to say if elected President he would deny Congress their health coverage unless they passed a universal health care plan. (He could try, but it would be a major violation of the Separation of Powers clause in the US constitution!) So, this would definitely be an area that Edwards and the organization would be a good mix.

The Associated Press has quoted Edwards strong stance on this issue as follows: “‘It requires that everybody is covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care,’ he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. ‘If you are going to be in the system, you can&’t choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK.’ “

In terms of a law requiring that 1/3 of the federal budget would be used for social programs is a somewhat curious area. While Edwards does definitely believe that there should be expensive social program spending, he has never committed a mandatory monetary figure of the budget to the spending. In fact, it would be bizarre to pass a law that perpetually mandates a certain percentage of the budget blindly without ever looking at the overall costs to the nation. With the nation currently at war, it is doubtful that such a figure could ever be maintained. Additionally, it is doubtful that the electorate would support the social spending of that degree so this figure is probably a bit too high for Edwards to through his support behind.

While Edwards and Americans for the Preservation for Fundamental Americanism share certain values, they also disagree strongly on other matters. As such, it is doubtful that the two would ever be able to work together in any capacity.


Did it help you?