I agree with the things you say are consistent wtih the absence of poverty, like education and health care, good jobs, housing and family stability.

These things, I would argue, are not going to come to people who are politically disenfranchised. You cannot simply bestow upon people the fruits of financial enfranchisement without the political enfranchisement required to maintain the financial status. You may have a lot of money today, but as long as I control the government, I can increase your taxes without your consent and leave your poor in an instant. I can rezone your property and make very valuable or completely valueless. I can make a law that requires that you be paid equally for equal work, or I can absolutely refuse to enforce the laws so that you find you are unable to get any pay at all for the work you do. Those who control the levers of government power have great control over who is poor and who is not, and I am not talking about welfare programs here.

If the government paves the road that leads to your house and picks up garbage there, then the value of your house will go up. If the government refuses to do these things then the value of your house will not increase, which will, in turn, limit your access to refinance loans and the educational benefits that often come from accessing home equity.

Women and minorities need political power if they are to receieve equal pay for equal work, equal opportunities, end redlining, create national health care. If someone wants to vote for John Edwards to perpetuate the political power of white men, then at least their vote is consistent with their motives. But if they want to vote for John Edwards to increase the political power of women and Blacks, then I say, "please don't do me any favors!"

"Only after we change that which seemed essential do we realize how natural the "new normal" really is and how inevitable it always was."

www.francislholland.blogspot.com
francislholland@yahoo.com