Channel Button

There are 21 articles on this title. You are reading the article ranked and rated #2 by Helium's members.

Debate_icon

Politics, News & Issues   >

Presidential Elections 2008

Get a Widget for this title

Does John Edwards' personal wealth make him seem insincere in his commitment to end poverty?

Results so far:

No
53% 118 votes Total: 224 votes
Yes
47% 106 votes

People of means - John F. Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt and a host of foundations funded by the wealthy - long have fought against poverty. John Edwards' wealth not only does not make him insincere but may be crucial in the fight against poverty. Traditionally, the empowered have been a necessary instrument of change on behalf of the disenfranchised. For instance, white abolitionists helped bring down slavery, and men helped women gain the right to vote.

There are well-documented principles of persuasion in communication that dictate that a small number of influential people must be approached to carry a message. The key word here is "influential." In most instances, the disenfranchised may have a voice but don't have the clout that can lead to change.

To be sure, there were Black abolitionists: Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth and Henry Highland Garnet. But because these people often were not considered credible - or in many instances, human - their requests alone for freedom never would have led to emancipation. Their writings and speeches were necessary as evidence, but they were secondary to the arguments of white abolitionists, such as Quaker Benjamin Lay and Anthony Benezet, theologian Jonathan Edwards and Lucretia Mott. As unfair as it may seem, their whiteness was vital to their credibility.

The same is true of the suffrage and Women's Movement. Because men made up the majority of lawmakers, they were the ones who needed to be persuaded that women had the brains to vote. Because many men considered and still consider the women the weaker vessel physically, intellectually and morally, it took the support of men to persuade them otherwise.

In the same way, Jonathan Edwards carries a sort of clout with his legislative and financial peers, many of whom have about as much of a clue as to the nature of poverty as Marie Antoinette had shortly before the French Revolution. His money does not have to be put to direct use to make a substantial impact.

Learn more about this author, Rebecca Bibbs.
Contact this writer Click here to send this author comments or questions.


Below are the top articles rated and ranked by Helium members on:

Does John Edwards' personal wealth make him seem insincere in his commitment to end poverty?

No
  • 1 of 13

    by Southern Housewife

    John Edwards has tremendous credibility when he speaks of two Americas; he has lived in both of them. He was not "born to

    read more

  • 2 of 13

    by Rebecca Bibbs

    People of means - John F. Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt and a host of foundations funded by the wealthy - long have fought

    read more

Yes
  • 1 of 8

    by Howard Nichols

    Wealth by itself does not necessarily equate to insincerity. In John Edwards' case however, several aspects of his wealth

    read more

  • 2 of 8

    by Barry Girolamo

    John Edwards is the quintessential limousine liberal. The type that sends his kids to private schools and owns a private

    read more

Add your voice

Know something about Does John Edwards' personal wealth make him seem insincere in his commitment to end poverty??
We want to hear your view. Write_penWrite now!

175649

Featured Partner

National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA)

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) has partnered with Helium, giving you the chance to write for a cause....more

Helium, Inc.
200 Brickstone Square Andover, MA 01810 USA