Do
you? Do you really care?
Those
were the words of President Clinton, who resided in luxury for which
we paid. He lived, as do all our presidents now, in a residence
cared for by numerous servants eager (and employed) to satisfy every
whim.
According
to The Hill, on President Obama's last Thanksgiving in the
White House, the menu included, as the first course, "mini
BLT's, chicken satay with pizza chili dip, mini crab cakes, pizza
bites, fresh veggies and hummus and pigs in the blanket."
The
second course featured "thyme-roasted turkey with garlic jus and
cranberry-orange relish, a honey-baked ham with apricot-mustard
glaze, prime rib and creamed horseradish with shallot marmalade, and
fried chicken wings." I won't bore you with side dishes and
desserts, but they were equally excessive in number and decadent in
content.
How
does someone eating like that, a meal prepared by an Executive Chef
with 25 assistants, relate to a single mother who has no food to make
for her children?
There
is a disconnect between our leaders and us. I may not be poor,
however I cannot help but see it. No rhetoric can cover it up,
because the difference in life style between "the leader of the
free world" and those whom he claims to represent (as well as
the needy around the world), is flaunted and reported. It can't be
denied by flowery and disingenuous words. We should prevent our
leaders from using them.
Better.
A way should be found to make the words true.
That's
not so easy. People rarely go into politics with the aim of living
like their constituents – of feeling their pain. Politics is the
path upward, not downward – to power, not impotence. They don't
want to feel that pain, however much they maintain that they do.
They yearn for prime rib and creamed horseradish with shallot
marmalade. They're not interested in starving. But they have to
appear to relate to the suffering of the poor, so they issue pious
declarations of their concern. People almost believe them.
(President Truman said "Always be sincere, whether you mean it
or not.") And they obediently vote for them.
That
doesn't mean, however, that there aren't ways to deal with the
disparity. I suspect there are other ways, but I'd like to suggest
one. It's not guaranteed to bridge the gap, but it would be a
start.
It
would be useful if, at regular intervals (when no visiting
dignitaries are expected), the president, and, for that matter, other
politicians with significant input into the lives of our people, were
required to live in settings similar to those of our most deprived
citizens – to see how the other "half" lives and actually
feel their pain. Allowance would have to be made for their
responsibilities and for their safety, but it might make them more
sympathetic to the genuine needs of the poor.
Perhaps
it would mean the construction of an unheated and run-down shack in
the rose garden. Perhaps the meals during the period of residence
(perhaps a week at a time) would be spare or absent, but it would
give them a taste of the lives of the lowest level of society – not
the highest.
I'm
not advocating the embarrassment of government officials, only a
means or educating them to the real needs of our people. Foreign
policy, and a variety of national needs require their attention but,
at the moment, our own needy are getting little more than words –
and words don't fill stomachs. I suspect that most of our leaders
have never endured the deprivations of which they speak so
knowledgeably, and don't relate to them at all – unless they are
trying to gather votes. This would help them understand a little
better what is the lot of so many Americans. And moreso the fate of
so many around the world.
Requiring
the rich – and all presidents are rich, no matter how they may deny
it – to live, every now and then, the life of the poor may make
them better understand the lives of the people around them, even it
does not make them more sympathetic to their needs. And if, for no
other reason than to improve the conditions for their next "sentence"
to the life of the poor, they may consider measures that would help
the needy. Really feeling the pain may sensitize them to their
constituents' needs, in addition to their own.
June 13, 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment
I know you agree, but you can leave comments anyway.