Q: No one seems to have talked about the deficit, and I see that as a twofold problem. Not only are we going into debt, but we're mortgaging our future to the Chinese -- last time I noticed, they weren't really allies of ours, weren't really our friends. I wonder what would your approach to the piling up of the deficit be?

Edwards: Well, I have to first off say what everybody here knows...when George Bush came into office we had surpluses as far as the eye could see, and now we have deficits as far as they eye can see. I think the honest answer to this question is that there's a tension between our desire to eliminate the deficit and create a stronger economic foundation and eliminate some of the debt our children will inherit, there's a tension between that deficit and our need to invest and make America stronger for the 21st century.

I think that, if we're honest, you cannot it, it's just common sense in the math, have universal health care, and invest in energy, and make a serious effort to eliminate poverty, to strengthen the middle class, and do some of the work that I think America needs to be leading on around the world, and at the same time, eliminate the deficit. Those things are incompatible. And anybody who claims -- politicians who say 'I'm going to give you a big tax cut, and give you health care, put more money into education, and oh by the way, we're going to balance the budget in the process,' it's just make-believe, it isn't the truth. So I think there's gonna be hard judgments that have to be made -- my commitment is to have universal health care, to do things that have to be done about this energy situation and global warming, because I think they're enormous threats, not only to the people of America but to the future of the world, for America to lead on some of these big moral issues that face the world, and I think America has to do something about poverty, I just do. Those are higher priorities to me than the elimination of the deficit. I don't want to make the deficit worse and I would like to reduce the deficit, but in the short-term, if we don't take a step to deal with these other issues, it in my judgment, undermines the ability of America to remain strong in the 21st century.

Although, as I've said, I'm currently leaning towards Edwards, I don't want to push him too much, but really, when was the last time you heard a politician admit that two goals, both desirable in themselves, are incompatible, and that hard choices have to be made over which to aim for? It's a dangerous thing to say, frankly, because the people aren't generally inclined to want to hear that they have to make those choices, and usually can't resist the pol who tells them that they can eat their cake now and still have it around for later. Still, it's honest, and it's true, and Edwards' choice of which goals to concentrate on (universal health care, strengthening the middle class and poverty reduction over controlling the deficit, for instance) are exactly the ones that I would make.

However, because such honesty can be dangerous, I would recommend that Edwards not dwell on it too much, that he talk more about what his progressive populist programs will accomplish and rather soft-pedal the cost issue, since it tends to feed into the "tax-and-spend" mythos that the right loves to trot out to use against liberals. Fortunately (or unfortunately), I think things have gotten to be bad enough economically and socially that people really are inclined to allow the government to tackle these problems.

[via Washington Monthly]