As I’ve written several times before, election results, especially in America, are determined primarily by those citizens that don’t vote, versus those that do bother to cast their ballots. Unless it’s a blowout landslide, such as Lyndon Johnson’s defeat of Barry Goldwater in 1964, or Richard Nixon’s 49 state sweep against George McGovern in 1972, it’s the stay-at-homes that are usually the decisive factor, especially in close elections. (You can add Ronald Reagan’s 49 state victory over Walter Mondale in 1984, to the few contests where non-voters were not a primary issue.) So who are these non-voters that decide most elections. Well, for the most part, these are people that are mired in deep and unrelenting poverty. People that will never hear phrases from others such as “good morning” or “have a nice day.” For those people living in rat-infested, and crime and drug riddled slums, who lack the resources to put food on the table for themselves and their children, it’s never going to be a nice day. Caught up in their own misery, despair, and sense of hopelessness, the last thing on their minds is finding a polling booth, and standing on line to cast a ballot for politicians that will invariably ignore their desperate plights in the first place. Hence the success of the Republican Party.
It’s no secret that the percent of people bothering to vote steadily increases with the amount of material affluence these people attain. The amount of wealth a person accumulates is in direct proportion to the fear among these affluent types, that forces within this country are seeking to to rob them of their wealth. Such as the wrong type of people in political office that would over-burden them with heavy taxes, and redistribute their wealth to the poor. Who, in their minds, are either lazy, or shiftless, or too dumb to make a decent living. Or all of the above. Hence, the affluent naturally gravitate to the Republican Party, that continually promises to cut taxes mostly for the rich, as well as severely slash, if not eliminate welfare programs for the poor, such as food stamps, housing assistance, and medical care. Thus, the Democratic Party’s dilemma- the very people its programs are designed to assist, are the ones that barely show up to vote for them on election day.
The government calculates that about 16% of the U.S. population now lives below its officially established poverty rate, which equates to almost 50 million Americans. But it’s much worse than that, if you consider that the official poverty level is really a joke. The official poverty level for single people is about $13,000, and even less for old fogies like me. For a family of 4, it runs at less than $25,000. Try putting a roof over the heads of such a family, as well as feeding them 3 half-way decent daily meals, buying them clothing, transportation and communication means, as well as medical care, all for 25 grand a year. Of course, poverty levels vary significantly among ethnic groups with blacks and Hispanics bearing the brunt of having to live out their lives in squalor and despair. Poverty levels for those 2 groupings approach the 30% range, while for non-Hispanic whites, it stands at around 10%. The only thing saving these down-trodden poor are the government assistance programs that I mentioned previously. The very ones that Republican voters are so eager to dismantle.
It’s all part of the “what’s in it for me” mentality. The “as along as I have mine, the hell with everyone else” mindset. That’s why politicians from both parties seldom, if ever, talk about the plight of the poor. Political campaigning is always about the middle class, who actually do vote in ever increasing numbers based on their levels of affluence. It’s so much more fun for politicians to demonize undocumented immigrants, who are among the poorest of the poor, as Donald Trump has done so effectively in getting the middle-class all riled up. Rather than discuss real issues such as life destroying poverty. Speaking of Trump, which I discussed in my last entry, I failed to mention that back in 2012 when Trump thought he could achieve fame and power by joining the “birther” movement, he did receive some unexpected blowback. George Will, a conservative newspaper columnist, whose column appears in many papers across the nation, couldn’t take it anymore. He called Trump a “bloviating ignoramus” which helped speed up Trump’s political demise back then. This year, he’s bloviating about immigration. Anything to avoid the real issues of the day that afflict this country.
Back during the turbulent 1960s, of which I’ve written about often, the U.S. had 3 great leaders, who I believed could lead us to far better and more peaceful and prosperous landscape-namely Jack and Bobby Kennedy, and Martin Luther King. After Jack Kennedy and Martin Luther King were assassinated I wrote that Bobby Kennedy was our last best hope for a more humane society built on decency and compassion. For example, during his 1968 campaign for the presidency, Bobby would visit places such as rural Mississippi and find (usually black) farmhands living in the most dismal, down run shacks, amidst indescribable, bone-crushing poverty. He would tell the farm owners that he wouldn’t allow his dogs to live under such despicable conditions. The farm owners responses were often to threaten Bobby with bodily harm. After Bobby was also assassinated, I wrote that the U.S. had probably lost its last best hope for a more humane and just society, perhaps for all time. It seems those words are even more appropriate in today’s landscape.
So welcome to the what’s in it for me syndrome, flourishing so spectacularly amidst our instant gratification society. We’re just getting started in the demonization and bloviating antics that will only intensify over the next 15 months. Buckle up everyone.