|
than just election reform.
The fact that so many people worked so long and hard in order to present an obvious issue is telling. What does it say about a system that makes it, if not dangerous, certainly difficult, to bring issues into the open?
The systemic subversion of the largely minority population in urban areas indicates to me that a dialogue must take place. The notion of the separation of the chuch and state is well established. It is a necessity. However, what if unfetered free-market capitalism has become a religion that drives the state?
I've listened to many right-wingers from the US, and their dogmatic disinformation is very much akin (in it's tenacity) to the dogma espoused by fundies. Human nature doesn't change, and if there was a need for the government to look after the nation's weakest in the past, there will always be a need.
I truly believe that you cannot run a country as though it were a business because what happens is that a "bottom line" is put on citizens. People become mere collateral. And if individuals are considered disposable, so to are their votes.
I was disturbed to see so many politicians say that although it was obvious many people lost their votes, they (the politicians) felt they should go along with the results. You can rest assured that if the disenfranchisement occurred in weatlhy suburbs, there would be hell to pay.
|