I did like John Edwards two Americas theme, but something was always missing.

In these days of all praise to material wealth, while keeping the poor and the needy, and their issues, out of our face in America, it seemed almost anachronistic to have this particular guy standing up for those off the “liberal” medias radar.

Maybe it was just me, but I could not buy the words coming out of Mr Edwards. He had that aloof aura of being almost sure he was always right, or could at least use the trial room tricks to pretend his view was all above everyone else’s.  His smug sureness, however, seemed to surpass his knowledge at times, leaving me feeling I was always watching the John Edwards act.

I do not know his story exactly. A poor kid from a large family. First to go to college or something like that, but where did that royal cockiness come from? Most people from tough backgrounds retain a certain hard life quality that ads to their character. Wherever his was, I did not see it, only a calm but slick attitude. I did see an overconfident, looks dependent overachiever, assuming the aura of rising above the common riff-raff. One might say yes to his analysis, that laws and orders seem to apply mostly to some Americans and not to others, but coming from him just always left me suspicious. I had to convince myself that my suspicions were a bias of mine, for why can’t this guy be meaning what he said, and I just have a problem with his style?

I do feel this focus on peoples private lives had morphed into make or break voting issues for that middle of the road bunch who seem not to know the fundamental differences in our two political parties. That has become one of those stealth character factors applied to divert attention from real governing policies. While moral and ethical judgements tell us something of a persons character and a societies taboos, it does not tend to determine policy judgements, except in those cases where ones own “indiscretions” are purged, not in oneself, but in the outer public realm.

We do come to the reality check part, of all these politicians across the party boards who seem to feel they will not be discovered at something they know will harm their reputation, there family, and many in the world trusting them. These deniers have seemed to be champions in society against the very vice they themselves indulge in. We have seen again and again, the arrogance of the “super achievers”, their apparent self delusions and their apparent trivialization of those whom they are elected to govern.

It is a sorry situation, not that humans have flaws and frailties that fall to poor judgement, but that lying and denial are the bedrock on which they lay their case to the world once first exposed, besides; what or where were they thinking!. This rejection of accusation may be a common and “rational” reaction to being caught, but it raises great questions as to how those who run for public office view the public themselves; as stepping stones to their grand ego’s plan for spectacular historical prominence. I’m afraid they get part of what they were looking for, while we shake our heads.

Knowing the next champion of the poor or of family moral values, may well have something significant to hide, it is voting and democracy that are being violated. For each time we find another one who was in some ways untrustworthy, some will wonder if any candidates are worthy of a vote. The establishment of this kind of doubt does little to defend our common institutions. In their place will walk—–the wolves.

2 thoughts on “JOHN EDWARDS and me

  1. The narcissistic criterion seems to apply to most all presidential candidates. It is as if we created and office or societal position that would “naturally” attract these figures. Democracy, as it now operates in the US, has many seemingly antiquated or systemic malfunctions. That we continue with a mass media based campaign forum that encourages all kinds of deception as legitimate democratic debate is a shame on us ultimately.

    Many of us could see the emotional disturbance present in the current executive branch holders well before their first implant. Yet these fundamental character health questions are not on the public radar. Instead, an assembly of other pandering issue list stands up to be compared between the candidates.

  2. Why let John Edwards define himself as a narcissist? How is he different from any other cheating husband? Seems to me that he’s just a grade A (and stupid) Adulterer.

    If John Edwards is a narcissist, then lets compare this to the DSM psychiatric criteria for his personality disorder:

    Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV-R), the diagnostic classification system used in the United States, as “a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy.”

    A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following[1]:

    1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (John Edward wants to be president)
    2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love (Admits self-love and seems to loving to preen)
    3. believes that he or she is “special” and unique (obviously)
    4. requires excessive admiration (obviously)
    5. has a sense of entitlement (ran again after losing with Kerry, believes he DESERVES to be VP)
    6. is interpersonally exploitative (used his wife’s cancer and love to gain sympathy while destroying her love with adultery)
    7. lacks empathy (doesn’t care that he has forever defined his children’s lives with his adultery)
    8. is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her (everybody want to be me!)
    9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes (claimed he was 99% honest if Enquirer was 99% wrong!)

    So, let John Edwards call himself a narcissist. Obviously, someone has told him this in the past. So, if you voted for Edwards, then you have to ask yourself why you would put the United States in the hands of such a person?

    Of course, if John Edwards was smart, he’d have claimed that Rielle was simply a surrogate holding his baby (from artificial insemination). Elizabeth had full knowledge and expected the child to be turned over, but John was meeting with Rielle after she reconsidered. This explanation even covers the money payments. Well, seems like John really ain’t too bright!! Just a poor liar and a cheat!

Comments are closed.