WHAT SEEMS

© Port Whitman Times 2008

There is a major problem in political perception. That is that the Democrats are for the poor, the Republicans for the rich. You can hardly blame the Dems, since getting elected is the first order of business, and currently the poor are a large, electorally influential group increasing in their numbers. Since we count one vote per body, the party that says it's for the poor has, one would assume, automatically more votes on election day.

Now, since we are paying the poor just to stay alive, with possibly their one contribution to the system being their vote, we're (Dems AND Repubs) literally paying them for their votes. So whoever pays more of them more, i.e., the bigger briber, gets more votes. And the poorer and dumber he keeps them, with just enough cash to survive, the more surely he can predict that his bribe will produce a vote.

Actually, it's not bad, being paid to stay alive. Gives you a chance to get your life together when you're down; but being paid to stay STUPID, something else, to stay poor, unthinkable. Being paid for doing nothing though, sure has merits, y'know? Because in that time other people are using to keep themselves alive, you can be, oh, doing something, something constructive, one would hope.

But back to perception, mis-perception really, part of which is that many people perceive the party that gives the poor the most money operates for their greatest benefit. But look closer -you'll find it not so. In fact, quite the opposite sometimes.

But who does operate in the best interests of the people he proposes to lead, the person who gives them more money, or the one who gives them more education? Not that I'm claiming one party or another DOES, but which party, would you say, is more committed to educating more people faster and better? There's a party worth attending to, and staying with.

Henry Francisco
The Port Whitman Times