In politics, 'ya dance with the one who brung ya.'

If I want to fix education or legalize marijuana I've got to get elected. When a corporation wishes to express it's free speech ($) by supporting me, and they only ask for my vote on another issue that I don't care anything about, I'll take their money and they'll get my vote.

Indeed, my constituents, who supoorted me 'cause I was going to fix the schools, may not care that I have to vote for the RIAA's agenda in order to get corporate support. Would I get re-elected if I didn't fix the schools because I turned down RIAA's money, in order to protect your kid's right to use p-p?


When you need, say, a homeless shelter for 200 people, you'll probably get offered funds for 50 people. Do you take the money so you can at least help those 50? Thing is, you can't come back next year and ask for money for the other 150 people because the Legislature will tell you there isn't enough time to address every important issue; a problem that was addressed last year is just not going to get back on the agenda for a couple more years.

Or do you turn down the offer to help 50 people because you want to come back next year and say that there remains a desperate need to help the 200? You get far more media coverage when you can say, "Nothing has been done to fix this!", instead of, "They haven't done enough".

The question is tricky enough if we're talking about widgets. When the issue is about people's suffering, (the 50 who will sleep in the cold because of your concerns for the other 150), it becomes a very difficult decision.

Most people say we should lock up crack-addicted expectant mothers so that they can get proper nutrition and pre-natal care, to have healthy babies who will grow up to become good taxpayers. However, addicts don't like to be locked up. When those expectant mothers find that going in for pre-natal care will result in them being locked up, they don't go. We end up with crack-addicted mothers who receive no pre-natal care, and babies who grow up to be tax recipients. Trying to explain that to people results in many saying, "So you just want to let them do crack!" No, but the road to Hell...

The above are two examples of my reasons for leaving the Dept. of Public Health, and giving up any thoughts of holding elective office. If you really care, you face endless frustration when services provided a community are based upon budget, rather than need.

bci:

I appreciate your dilemma, however I disagree with your final decision to abstain from voting. I think you should be required to vote or pay a fine for making the rest of us decide for you. I put on a uniform and stood at post to protect your rights; please excercise them.

Our friends from Down Under are required to vote. And on the whole, I believe the average Aussie is more politically aware than the average Yank. Even when your vote is for the lesser of two evils, you're involved in the system, and that's the first step in holding elected officials accountable. Politicians are far more open to hear from one who says, "I voted for you..."