PoliticalPoints: Politics quick, fast & in a hurry.

I was having dinner with a man who worked for a government official and his comments on presidential elections and voters were very revealing. He gave me permission to post his thoughts here on the site, but only anonymously. He said the following:

“Perception is everything, that’s why media is so powerful. If voters hear it enough via media that you believe or have done a particular thing, they will buy it without researching the accuracy of the statement or report. The average voter does not understand politics and every politician knows and takes advantage of that. They often systematically target demographics they know have limited political understanding.”

I was searching my junk email last week for an important message that may have been filtered, when I saw an email from “Beyonce` Knowles.” I thought this was strange, considering promotional messages from the pop-singer’s website usually safely makes it to my inbox. I opened it up and realized immediately why it filtered. The email didn’t come from Bey’s website; it was from "[email protected]." It was a rather interestingly worded advertisement for a donation contest:

“ I have an amazing invitation I have to share. Jay [husband, rapper Jay-z] and I [Beyonce`] will be meeting up with President Obama for an evening in NYC sometime soon. And we want you to be there! Until midnight tonight, if you pitch in $25 or whatever you can, you'll be automatically entered to be flown out to join us. I've had the honor of meeting President Obama and the First Lady a few times -- and believe me -- it's an opportunity you don't want to miss…. https://donate.barackobama.com/Meet-Me-in-New-York. Can't wait to meet you! Love, Beyoncé”

I checked Barack Obama’s website and the offer was legit. I’m sure thousands of Beyonce` fans and Obama supporters jumped at the chance and donated, but I found the whole email and offer unsettling. First, I think it’s a problem that the email doesn’t clearly state what entity you’re donating to or why. It kind of appears sneaky and secretive; the financial backing of a government official is covert. Second, Beyonce`, in this case, is selling her and Obama’s presence for money. It’s kind of like political prostitution. Support the politician I’m likely voting for and I’ll have dinner with you? This is very different from a product endorsement or being a spokesperson for a cause. I don’t get to share a meal with Beyonce` if I purchase a box of L’Oreal hair color. My hair will just be a different hue. As a spokesperson for a cause, I get to hear from Beyonce` why she thinks the cause is important and why I should contribute; I still don’t get to have tacos with her. Had I received an email declaring her endorsement for Barack Obama, why she backs him and why I should give him money, I wouldn’t have raised my eyebrows. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with celebrities supporting politicians, but it matters how you do it. Don’t pimp yourself out. If you’re going to use your name and voice, let’s hear your name and voice.

As some of you may or may not know, a video of presidential candidate Mitt Romney leaked earlier this week in which he said the following about some American voters:

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president [Obama] no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. My job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

Romney was reportedly speaking at a private fundraiser and was unaware of the fact that he was being videotaped (you can view the footage here). If you don’t already see how Romney’s statement is quite misguided, let me attempt to explain how. Romney mentions how this voting cluster doesn’t pay income taxes. If your personal income is extremely low (i.e. the working poor) or non-existent, you may qualify for a tax credit (ex. child tax or earned income credit). According to the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), 60% of non-taxpayers were low-income workers, 22% were elderly individuals on Social Security and 17% were students, unemployed or disabled. These telling figures aside, Romney’s comments are reflective of the negative, stigma-based attitudes about the poor and those on government benefit programs. His statement implied that those who use government benefits are lazy, spoiled and comfortable in the state they’re in. This is a STEREOTYPE. Living below the poverty level is FAR from a comfortable lifestyle. As mentioned before, there are thousands of Americans who work hard and daily for very small wages. Minimum wage in most states is not a livable income, especially if one has children or is taking care of an elder parent. Lots of others have trouble gaining and retaining employment-particularly in this economy-for various reasons, including limited resources (ex. transportation), lack of education and prejudice. When I was working at a fast-food restaurant as a teen, a 50-something year old woman with hardly any teeth turned in an application. The manager told an associate to throw it away and said “She doesn’t have any teeth.” It never ran across his mind that perhaps she couldn’t afford dental care and if he gave her a job maybe she could. Imagine if every potential employer was that prejudiced. She would never find work.

When those in poverty speak of the obstacles that exacerbate their situation, they’re often told that they are complaining, making excuses or think that “they are victims.” This attitude is part of the reason certain things do not improve; few are willing to listen, accept and act when the impoverished or downtrodden speak. They’re called liars and met with judgment and heartlessness. Many have held Romney’s personal financial wealth against him, proposing that he’s “out of touch” and cannot relate to majority of voters. I don’t think it’s fair to assume that he cannot efficiently lead the country or help others simply because he is wealthy (let’s face it, most politicians are well-off and don’t match the demographics of most citizens), but when he makes comments like this, it gives evidence to the argument. Gail Gitcho, a Romney campaign spokeswoman, stated “Mitt Romney wants to help all Americans struggling in the Obama economy…the growing number of people who are dependent on the federal government…struggling to find work. Mitt Romney's plan…grows the economy and moves Americans off of government dependency and into jobs." It’s hard to believe that someone is concerned about you when they imply you’re lazy and playing the victim. What’s really confusing is that Romney acknowledges the economic downturn is part of the reason for “government dependency” and unemployment in one breath, but suggests complacency and idleness is the reason in another. Which one is it? As columnist Melissa Harris-Perry wrote: “There is some messy logic involved with insisting people get a job & while campaigning on platform that there are not enough jobs.”

Also on the tape are Romney’s opinions on ABC’s “The View,” saying that appearing on the program would be “high-risk, because, of the 5 women on it, only 1 is conservative and 4 are sharp-tongued and not conservative.” Is it high-risk because the “sharp-tongued” women will challenge his views and he might feel backed into a corner? His views are supposed to be challenged, whether he’s with fellow republicans or not. I would like to think that any citizen or journalist, regardless of political affiliation, would ask the important questions. What are your thoughts on Mitt Romney’s statements?