Does Wealth Lack Empathy?

The gloves have touched, the bell has rung, and the two remaining champions have come out fighting. In hopes of winning the ultimate prize, the presidential candidates snarl and throw viscous punches at the other’s character. While this is a common technique in politics, one has to wonder; don’t the representing parties owe the public accurate and relevant information? Shouldn’t the parties be held responsible for delivering misleading or irrelevant information to the public? The most recent topic in the presidential boxing match focuses on the candidates’ personal belongings—specifically, their homes.

The Republican Party began an in-depth examination on Barack Obama’s character after discovering a close relationship between Tony Rezko, a convicted felon of wire and mail fraud, money laundering, and aiding and abetting bribery. Rezko, a property developer and fundraiser for Obama, was also accused of exchanging campaign contributions and bribes for property contracts. Obama and Rezko’s relationship matured when Obama and his wife, Michelle bought their Chicago home for $1.65 million; while Rezko's wife bought an adjacent side lot for $625,000. Within months, Obama bought a section of the lot from Rezko. Although Obama is not suspected for any illegal activities, the Republican Party questions his ability to make wise choices—a requirement for leading a nation. Since Obama has repeatedly made poor association choices (first with Rev Jeremiah Wright, then with Rizko), Obama’s ability to lead is the dominate concern for many people.

The Democratic Party counterattacked. When McCain was asked how many homes he owned, the senator from Arizona was loss for words. “I’ll have my staff get back to you,” McCain answered. After John McCain fumbled with recalling how many homes he and his wife own, the Democratic Party questioned his ability to empathize with the daily struggles of the average American. In fact, when it comes to McCain and his property, the Democratic Party would have the American people believe that one’s character should be questioned if (s)he is successful. Senator Joe Biden, the Democratic Vice President Elect referred to McCain as a man who is out of touch with “kitchen-table” topics that many American’s face during his acceptance speech. “It’s pretty hard to experience. He’ll have to figure out which of the seven kitchen tables to sit at,” Biden said. While he elevated Obama for becoming an “American dream” icon, he criticized McCain for living it. Has the Democratic Party become so cynical that they have forgotten our former leaders and mentors?

Though born into wealth, former President John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert empathized with hardships and injustices of minorities and impoverished American’s during the Kennedy Administration. Empathetic to the American cries, he launched his economic programs in hopes of abolishing poverty. “For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life,” Kennedy said during his Inaugural Address in 1961. Even though the Kennedy’s haven’t directly faced poverty, no-one questioned their ability to empathize with those who have. Nevertheless, many Democrats use the wealth factor to penalize McCain, while elevating the Kennedy’s. Other examples of wealthy leaders who stepped outside of their comfort level to give aid to those in need include Franklin D. Roosevelt (The New Deal), and Theodore Roosevelt (The Square Deal).

Isn't the “American dream” an ideology that anyone, with hard work and sacrifice, can become successful. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Although Jefferson adjusted the phrase, the Declaration of Independence is a modified statement of John Locke who expressed a similar concept of "life, liberty, and estate.” Is the “American dream” for Democrats only? It seems to me that we should evaluate each candidate on issues that are relevant to the position of the office. What are the candidates offering the American people, what are their plans and how will the plans affect our nation, who is best qualified to protect us, who is most likely to promulgate a plan that will solve medical, pharmaceutical , and social security concerns? American’s should be more concerned with topics that are relevant to their lives and to the success of this nation foremost; and realize that irrelevant issues such as who bought what from whom and how much does (s)he own has nothing to do with the duties of the Oval Office. It’s time for us to look past the insignificant issues such race, gender, and irrelevant topics. It’s time we chose a candidate that can truly lead our country towards a brighter future. Perhaps, if we focus on the issues that are germane, the person who is best suited for the job will be the last one standing at the end of the 15^th round.


Sandie RH Hart
Beaumont TX.