In the pages of The Advocate, I noted two similarities between Edwards and Obama:
they both subscribed to an imperialistic view of a chief executive’s powers and
they both used their offices to campaign permanently and constantly. For the
latter, I gave a couple of examples where Edwards delivered criticism about a
potential opponent, Landry, over issues that had nothing to do with the
governor’s office: whether the state’s attorney general could initiate an
investigation of potential crimes despite constitutional prohibitions on that
and Landry’s joining the state with others to a dispute over the
constitutionality of the (misnamed) Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Yet others I know saw irony over using incidents
with Landry as an example of Edwards’ permanent campaign, because they believed
Landry displayed the same penchant. No doubt Landry does publicize activities
of his office as these relate to political issues of the day. For example, when
last week he issued
an opinion on Edwards’ powers as these relate to appointing a member of the
Red River Waterway Commission, which declared a recent Edwards appointment open
to legal challenge, unlike most he made a news
release for it. He also held a news conference over it and reiterated its
contents in a social
media post today.
There’s some genuine irony in that, as Landry recently criticized social media giants and has expressed interest in committing the state to efforts challenging the market dominance of several. That controversy in and of itself could support the notion that he uses his office to campaign as does Edwards with his.
But there are crucial differences. For one, unlike
Edwards, Landry doesn’t just pick something out of the air unrelated to his
office and use that to attack a presumed opponent, as Edwards did when he called
Landry’s explanation about why the state’s attorney general couldn’t launch an
investigation on its own politically motivated. Both instances last week had
something to do with Landry’s job, even if the one he publicized lodged
criticism against Edwards.
Additionally, whereas Edwards sees Landry as a
threat, which is why he will contrive any criticism possible of him regardless
of whether the issue in question relates to his job as governor, Landry is not doing
the same. That is, Landry doesn’t lash out at presumed opponents to his post,
much less over anything conceivable.
Of course, no known opponent to Landry’s reelection
has surfaced and he seems as safe to stay past 2019 as any statewide elected official.
Not so Edwards, whom Landry
seems unlikely to run against in any event but who entered office as an
underdog to win reelection.
And that’s what drives Edwards’ strategy. He received
confirmation of his precarious status last week with polling data showing
46 percent of likely voters would not reelect him; in the world of polling,
such a figure historically has presaged trouble for an incumbent. Slowly, he
finds increasingly backed into a corner, so he will lash out indiscriminately on
any controversy, no matter how manufactured, at any perceived threat to another
four years.
By contrast, Landry’s strategy appears about
building a record. He will cruise to reelection, and any aspirations beyond
that office he has time on his side. If Edwards miraculously survives for
another term, Landry will have an open gubernatorial seat in five years. If
another Republican wins but then stumbles in 2023 or serves through 2027,
Landry, a relatively young man, can take his shot in nine years. He can afford
to publicize activities critical of Edwards only as a foil, and restricted to
issues (related to his duties) important to conservatives, to help other conservatives
now and himself in the future.
So, Landry and Edwards might share a permanent campaigning
style in their respective offices. But Landry’s seems much more legitimate, in
the sense that he draws distinctions in the natural course of his duties, while
Edwards’ forced approach has an air of indiscriminate desperation.
No comments:
Post a Comment