Published: November 23, 2007 01:51 am      

Support unknown and unvoiced agendas

Last week, I declared support for charities and politics was going down separate but almost identical paths. That column discussed fund raising, programs, and charitable giving.

Today’s column represents the other side of the coin. In considering politics, the thrust is directed at attracting favorable attention and support for special projects. I consider support to include tangible and intangibles.

Political appeals run the same gamut as requests from tax-exempt charitable organizations. The range of political appeals is derived from carefully guarded mailing lists. The number of mailing pieces will be dependent upon the campaign, financial support, and strength of the opposition.

Celebrity or third party endorsements imply you should follow the example set by this star personage and go down the same path. I have never seen any endorsement that would swing my support.

Political requests for support manage to press most of the buttons that can create a voter reaction. Verbiage is selected, polished, rearranged, tested, and approved for specific audiences... All voters should be required to read each line at least three times.

Occasionally, readers may be tempted to discard material sent by the opposition. To be well informed; you must know your enemy.

Although there may be nothing wrong, bear in mind that you should know as much as possible about personalities, political support, and what is being presented about any side of a discussion.

The most interesting information comes from unvoiced hidden agendas. If you fail to read carefully or listen to a discussion, you may miss major points of dissension and contention.

Charities ask for your financial support. In politics, the requests are not (always) for money. In many cases, long-range political plans ask for your support in the form of votes or promised conformity with a party line.

Political leaders and candidates have a tendency to believe their approach and solution will provide paying taxpayers with accomplishments deemed impossible by many. We are not talking about a Messiah.

If there are opposing viewpoints, it would seem that voters/taxpayers could draw a line and make intelligent informed decisions based on stated subjects and topics. This works if viewpoints on both sides of the line are clear, comprehensive, and provide full disclosure.

That, my friends, is where my discussion of realities starts to fray around the edges.

If an innocent voter asks for more additional information or a finer definition, there is a tendency for politicians to ignore or reject the question and offer a different response.

(NOTE: Businesses do the same thing when they retreat behind the walls of policy. — GE)

To be sure, supporters of opposing sides may ask questions designed to embarrass the speaker. Leading questions, like those in polls, are constructed in such as way as to force a choice of unpleasant answers.

I have assumed support will not involve money changing hands. All too often, questions and answers will be painlessly paid for by using taxpayer dollars.

Stripped of biased politics and biased opinions, the inevitable goal is power. Power to select an approach for the future. Power to impose my will upon the populace. This can work if there is agreement on the goal and the use of power.

If we can assume that everyone is squeaky clean and there are no monsters lurking in a hidden and locked closet, we come to the real issue: Which viewpoint, which approach, will be most beneficial for the future?

A viewpoint or tentative blue print for the future should withstand questions from anyone trying to gather information for decision-making. If questions are denied without discussion, I suggest perhaps a closer examination could reveal hidden information.

Charities represent a myriad of organizations that need support for the managers to organize and operate their programs. If you do not support that group, perhaps you will support the next one. This is not totally true in politics.

Realistically, there are two opposing sides. A percentage of unaffiliated independents can swing elections at all levels. This could be traced to their understanding (rightly of wrongly) of the proposed issues.

Those who do not vote decide elections. When voters elect/ select a spokesperson, they expect a certain level of performance and achievement. If we elected the right person, we will still not agree all of the time.

However, if there was a private agenda, and voters believe something very different, then we do have a problem.

Candidates or elected officials do not have a lock on any magic solution. Their ideas and thoughts were not written on tablets of stone. Actions that cannot stand the light of day and the cold reality of truth are not worthy of my support.

The University of Texas Tower has these words emblazoned on the front: “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” Believe it.





Grady Easley is retired from gainful employment. Contact him at 219 Elkins Lake, Huntsville, Texas 77340