Election Years Bring Out The Political Rhetoric.

Every four years my country undergoes a process which resembles electing a leader. However, it appears that we only maintain or change philosophies instead of electing a leader. This appears to be so because as soon as a candidate is elected, they forget their election rhetoric and instead opt to endorse their party's philosophy - which may be the exact opposite to their pre-election promises.

If you are a disabled individual then it is imperative that you know the philosophy of the party to whom your candidate belongs. If you do not know this, then you may discover that you have voted for a candidate who belongs to a party whose philosophy may be harmful to your needs.

In my country we only have two parties but historically one has opposed offering true help to the disabled. Instead they have given us two placebos. None of these placebos have helped us regain our rightful place in our society. Why? It appears that this party never truly supported these ideas because they refused to fully fund, enforce, or implement either. Yet this party claims to be pro-disabled. Looks can be deceiving.

The first placebo was proposed 27 years ago and could have reduced the disabled unemployment rate. It didn't because it was never fully funded, enforced, or properly implemented. Its implementation was based on closure, not performance, so the more closures then the more money an agency could expect. Closure based implementation is harmful to the disabled because it only serves as a revolving door. We enter this door and are never truly helped.

Another placebo, proposed by this party, was hailed as our civil rights legislation. 10 years later, it has not been fully implemented or enforced and now it appears to be under attack by the same party that signed it. This same party also signed the other placebo into law.

Today this party's champion claims to be pro-disabled but his actions tend to disprove this contention. He appears to be for a piece of legislation that would drastically reduce the effectiveness of our civil rights legislation. He also refused to pull his state out of a brief that challenged the rationale behind this civil rights legislation. His rational for refusing to do this mirrors that of his party. Both view this legislation as being an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of the independent states. Because of this view both the candidate and his party view the disabled civil rights legislation as somehow being unconstitutional.

Go To Page: 1 2

Articles in this Topic    Discussions in this Topic