This Is Not News

Jill Porter in the Philadelphia Daily News had a column last Friday saying that John Edwards should end his presidential campaign because of the recurrence of Elizabeth Edwards’ cancer. Most of her points seem pretty weak to me, and Porter seems to know it. She quotes a breast cancer survivor who says that the decision should be up to Elizabeth and John, and she says she’s sure that this is what Elizabeth wants. (Press coverage since Friday has only confirmed that impression.) So what Porter seems to be saying is that Elizabeth is wrong to want to continue the campaign, and that John should override her wishes and make the “right� decision for her. I can imagine a dozen other contexts where that paradigm would provoke outrage.

I don’t think Porter’s attempt at gender reversal really works, either. If Hillary Clinton were in this situation with Bill, I think that everyone on the planet would know that Bill would want the campaign to continue. Hell, he’d probably campaign from his hospital bed if he could. Would some people criticize her for it? Yes, but those people would likely criticize Hillary Clinton for the color of her socks. If she dropped out, they’d snicker that it just proved she wasn’t tough enough to handle the campaign, or to try and win without Bill around.

There is one point that Porter makes that gives me some pause, though. John and Elizabeth have two young children. They did not ask to go through this campaign. They did not ask for the stress that it causes. They did not ask for the extra burdens it will place on their parents. They did not ask to live in a world where their family pain would become political fodder. There is a point in asking whether this is fair to them. But truthfully, you could say the same of any candidate with young kids. I remember watching the 60 Minutes segment on Barack Obama and his family and looking at his two small daughters, and wondering what on Earth they might be in for during this campaign – and especially if he wins. Since I’m an Obama supporter, a small part of me felt selfish for wanting to take these kids’ daddy away for an all-consuming job for the next ten years or so. With the uncertainty that comes with Elizabeth’s cancer recurrence, I can imagine that such concerns multiply a hundredfold. It probably would be better for the Edwards kids, all things considered, if John wasn’t running for president and Elizabeth wasn’t working so hard on the campaign.

But here’s the reason why I went over to Neil Sinhababu’s site last night. Since he’s the most prominent Edwards-supporting philosophical utilitarian I know of, I couldn’t help but think of him as I pondered this question. (He had no commentary up at the time, but he’s since posted a link to this post.) John Edwards is running under a belief that if he becomes president, it will improve the lives of thousands, probably millions of children from where they would be if he were not president. I have no reason to doubt his belief is sincere, and I see no reason why John Edwards shouldn’t think he has a chance to accomplish that good. If he believes that the lives of millions of people will be better if he’s president, and the lives of his own children will be worse off (but still good), then it certainly seems like the ethical thing to do would be to help all of those other kids.

As a parent myself, there’s a part of that argument that goes against every fiber of my being. I feel like I have a special obligation to my daughter, that I have to put her well-being above the well-being of not just other individuals, but entire groups if need be. But in part, that’s because I don’t feel like there are other people to pick up the slack for what my wife and I (and our families and friends) don’t provide. That lack of trust, that lack of feeling like we’re all in this together, is precisely the problem that’s tearing up our society. Porter even points out the problem:

Few individuals have the opportunity he does: to quit work and be there for his family.
Many spouses in John’s situation would be desperate to do so, but need to continue working to earn a paycheck and perhaps retain health benefits.

John and Elizabeth Edwards may have an enormous opportunity to change that dynamic. If they’re right, I certainly can’t fault them for making that effort. In fact, I applaud them.

I went to Neil Sinhababu’s site to research something for a longer, more serious piece I wanted to write. And I will still write that piece. Tomorrow. Because what I found on Neil’s site was a link to a webcomic called Lump of Clay, which did a long series of strips attempting to use the ontological argument to prove the existence of a perfect girlfriend.

(If you don’t know the ontological argument, here’s the very condensed version: if you can imagine a perfect x, then there must be an x in the world. Because a perfect x would have to be an x that exists. Why? Because existing is better than not existing. So an x that didn’t exist would have something wrong with it, and couldn’t be perfect. This argument is usually used to try to prove the existence of God. It is much more entertaining when used to prove the existence of a perfect girlfriend.)

The forum at the Library went pretty well today, I believe. When the conversation between Kloppenberg, Kuklick, and Westbook expanded to include the audience, there was definitely an intellectual energy that I found welcome. It brought me back to the excitement I felt when I first started studying pragmatism, and felt like I had found philosophical work that had some of the resources I was looking for. So I feel fortunate to have had a chance to help out with the event. It also left me thinking that there’s a useful purpose to this site, in getting some of these ideas out into the electronic conversation. Since I finished the dissertation, I think I’ve been taking the pragmatist background of the site more for granted and occasionally bringing it up in reference to particular issues. So I’m going to try to balance those posts out with the occasional re-visit to some of the important themes and texts in the pragmatist democratic tradition. We’ll see how that goes.

The Greater Philadelphia Philosophy Consortium is hosting a public forum on American Pragmatism and American Politics this Saturday at the Free Library on Logan Circle. The event is at 1:00 PM in the Montgomery Auditorium. I’m actually pretty excited about it, because three of the people other than John Dewey who are most responsible for my interest in pragmatism are going to be there: Robert Westbrook (who wrote John Dewey and American Democracy), Bruce Kuklick (who assigned me the aforementioned book in an intellectual history seminar in 1999) and James Kloppenberg (whose Uncertain Victory was one of the first comprehensive overviews of pragmatism and American social politics I read in my research). So if you’re in the area, come on down and philosophize.