Populist Might Not Be Popular

For the last week presidential hopeful John Edwards has been something of an obsession of mine. During the first few days after announcing his candidacy Jan. 2, talk of Edwards buzzed over the breakfast, lunch and dinner tables.

But no matter who I talked to, everyone eventually asked the same question: "Do you think he has a shot?"

Ouch. Think about it -- Edwards' own constituents asking if he "has a shot."

Yet it's a question that politicians and news organizations, on both the state and national level, are asking. Does this political newcomer -- a man proud of the fact that he's not a career politician -- have a chance at winning the White House?

Anyone who's read anything about Edwards' presidential bid knows that he's running on a "common man" platform. Last week he told CNN, "My whole life has been spent growing up with, coming from and fighting for regular Americans" -- a sentiment that has been repeated ad nauseum to Fox News, ABC News and any other news outlet willing to listen.

And much of what he's said thus far has been aimed squarely against the president. "His economic policies are focused on people at the top of the economic spectrum, not something that lifts up all Americans," he said. Edwards criticizes an administration that's "run largely by insiders and too often for insiders."

Edwards, it seems, is a self-proclaimed populist -- a supporter of the rights and power of the people. But populist presidential candidates have found little success in the last 50 years.

The populist angle seems solid enough -- appeal to the common man, win the common vote. So I spent some time looking through archives of presidential television commercials from the last 50 years looking for other populist candidates.

In 1976, former Georgia Governor-cum-President Jimmy Carter also ran on a "people's campaign."

"We've always worked for a living -- we know what it means to work."

I've heard that recently.

"There aren't a lot of loopholes for people who draw a paycheck every week ... but there are a lot of loopholes for the people who are rich and who have those lobbyists working for them in Washington."

I've heard that too.

It seems Carter was the only presidential candidate in the last 50 years to be elected on a populist platform; the only national candidate, in fact, to run on a populist platform at all. In the first post-Watergate election he emphasized his earthy stature as a "man of the people." Carter, much like Edwards, sold himself as a politician who somehow managed to exist outside of politics.

But Carter was elected during a post-Nixon, post-Vietnam era of anti-Washington public sentiment, and even then his victory was marginal. He won by 51 electoral votes but only won 21 states. The loss of New York and one other state would have meant a victory for Republican incumbent Gerald Ford.

As it stands now, Edwards won't have the luxury of riding a wave of anti-Republican sentiment. Bush's approval rating still is soaring, and public opinion seems to be leaning in favor of his military stance in the Middle East.

Edwards also will have to fight opponents attacking his political inexperience. With no immediate end to the war on terror in sight, would voters risk putting a man into office who has almost no foreign policy experience?

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle's recent decision not to run means that Edwards' main competition in the primaries likely will be Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, former House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt and former vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman -- all long-standing politicians with established reputations.

It's going to be an uphill climb for North Carolina's golden boy. In the coming year he's going to have to prove his critics wrong.

Advertising himself as the common man may swing a few votes, but it's not going to be enough. Edwards needs to prove to us that he can lead our country. But he's not there yet.

Come on, John. Prove to us you have a shot.

Mike Gorman can be reached at jhgorman@email.unc.edu.