Don’t Blame Me for the Bad Economy, I’m Just an Immigrant
As an immigrant, I would like to share my thoughts with voters in Pennsylvania, Indiana, and North Carolina about political pundits’ strategies. They seem to operate like arrogant cooks who lost their way while trying to deliver the best dish. Arrogant cooks tend to add more ingredients to the cooking that already went wrong. They are in motion, like a moving train, and they are on track to salvage the dish. They lack reflection and good judgment; when things start to go wrong, they add more and more stuff without considering its chemical reaction that could lead to structural change – the outcome could be bitter, even inedible. .
Of course, there are situations where we have to add more in order to salvage. The war in Iraq is a good example. The government has to spend additional funds in order to bring the soldiers home. By spending more, we save lives. Once the soldiers are home, and get full support, then the government can divert funds from military spending to social programs.
Hillary is one of those who voted for the war. Her campaign has been run by political pundits. In her strategy to salvage her candidacy, she is like an arrogant cook: she keeps adding new lies and attacks, but they are destroying whatever reputation she had.And she may take the democratic party down with her.
A lot of working class people are suffering. They are ready for change, but the Clintons fail to see the trend, and they fail to feel the wave of hope. While Bill grew up poor, and Hillary’s grandfather was a blue collar worker, the Clintons have nothing in common with working class people any more. They are members of the economic elite of the U.S. Since they left the White House (from 2000-2007), their average income was over $13.5 million a year above that of the average CEO of a large U.S. company ($10.8 according to United for a Fair Economy, 2006). They are removed, and they have moved on.
It is a lie for the Clintons to present themselves as defenders of working people. In 1995, when Bill was president, Hillary is quoted as having said about the working class, “screw them.” Now, in this election, they are misleading us, trying to get us to forget Bill Clinton’s economic legacy. Trade deregulation and term limits for welfare mothers brought hardship for the people: the loss of well-paying jobs, and the loss of health insurance that went with them. Now people are losing their homes. Yes, rural Americans are bitter because they are in pain while the Clintons are enjoying the American Dream. Obama is starting to tell what happened to those who have been left behind. Obama is listening to how people have been hurt, and how they have been lied to and used year after year by the politicians. For pointing out their suffering, he has been called elitist.
Obama worked his way up; does this make him into an elitist? His family income isn’t even in the same league as the Clintons; the Obamas just finished paying off their college loans. Or could it be the case that the pundits didn’t project having a black president? Are they saying that any Black who contend for the top office in the nation is too elite for their tastes? If that is case then Obama is elitist. Otherwise this attack is without grounds. The spotlight should be on the Clintons’ $108 million dollars, and where it came from. How about looking into how Bill has sold his presidential connections to corporate interests, calling himself a public servant, and writing a book called “Giving.”
I know it is coming: as an immigrant, I’m one of those people who will be blamed again for the bad economic times. But, let me say to voters in the rural areas of Pennsylvania, Indiana, and North Carolina – I’m here, in the United States, because the rulers, where I came from, denied me my right to hear the truth, denied me my right to speak the truth, and denied me my right to vote for my own interest. That is precisely what Hillary Clinton and John McCain are trying to do to you. They are trying to chip away your past, your knowledge of your own pain, and your bitterness about it. They are trying to make you believe that they care about your well-being. They are trying numb you out of feeling what’s around you. They are trying to make you lose contact with your own good judgment, and your ability to vote for your own interests. Like the people in my country, you pay dearly for every wrong choice you make. You, the American working class, may end up emigrating to other countries – like me, and like your ancestors – if you fail to fight for your own economic interests.
Now, I do believe that we have a messenger, Obama –He’s pointing out the truth, how workers have been lied to and sold out by politicians. He’s telling us that we need to fight for our rights. Remember, the messenger can not do it alone.
I’m here, and I have no intention to emigrate to China or to other countries again. I will fight back against those who want to take my rights — side by side with the people of Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, and with all voters who have been marginalized.
Having shot and a beer with Hillary is not a solution – it is a mirage. You won’t get invited to her place for a hot meal. But, if you are ready to change Washington, you will be able to cook your own a hot meal at home – sweet home.
Germai Medhanie April 21, 2008 at 10:09 am
“Even so, affluenza has reached the point where government interference is necessary to control these wants…”
This statement makes me nervous. I agree that government interference will be a part of the “cure” for affluenza, but I think it needs to have more to do with controlling firms rather than people. The concept of a government controlling the “wants” of the people brings to mind several failed experiments – Cuba, for example. People have natural “wants” that for the most part are perfectly reasonable – we want to be comfortable, we want to be well-liked, we want to be happy. The problem is when unregulated firms go out and advertise, brainwash and capitalize on those wants, attaching false solutions to them. We will be comfortable if we have a big house and an expensive car, we will be well-liked if we wear designer clothing, we will be happy if we keep buying things that make us happy. Yes, now these attachments or amendments to our wants are fully internalized by the public, but I think it makes more sense for the government to go about addressing the cause of the problem – advertisement and unregulated firms, rather than the effect – a public that buys unnecessary and unhealthy products.
I like the idea of limiting options to children, but I think it would be even more effective in the long-run to limit the amount of advertising of unhealthy foods that reaches children. It’s a good first step to take unhealthy food out of school, but the children are still being inundated with advertising outside of school. Kids tend to want what they can’t have, especially when they know what it is and that other kids like it.
Lauren, I really appreciate your comment, but I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. If you read on, I clearly say that the government can’t control the wants (desires) of the people directly. What I was trying to say in the phrase you commented on was that the government will be necessary to control affluenza (whether that be by a carbon tax, limiting the food options to children, or by controlling advertising–which I think is a very good point). I meant that the government (in some cases) will have to control the wants in an indirect way by controlling the causes. I should have been much more explicit in saying that. Thank you for drawing that to my attention.
Sorry for nitpicking about the wording, Ali. I definitely agree with what you are saying. I’m sort of having an inner debate right now about how much government regulation I want in general and I think I took it out on you!
I think it’d be cool to do something like an ad campaign to teach children about healthy consumption, a mix between regulating advertisement and regulating consumption.
I, too, find it especially interesting to consider the role of government intervention in the context of both affluenza and our country’s current financial situation. We live in a country that very much values capitalism and individualism. Many people are very wary of government intervention and its potential to “rob” the individual of rights and infringe upon our personal freedoms. With lingering Cold War-era taboos against communism and socialism, some people look very negatively upon the notion of government control. However, I believe that the government should hold the fundamental role of acting in the best interest of its citizens. In that context, the government should step in and enact programs that promote the overall well-being of the people. I agree that, in fighting against affluenza and strengthening our country’s economy, government action is necessary and has the potential to bring about a great deal of positive change.