Which Eco Footprint?
As commentary continues about the dying newspaper industry, there is little discussion about another industry which has emerged almost full blown before our eyes: the Election Industry. Once thought of as a seasonal endeavor, it is broken out and claimed our attention and pocketbook full time, wall to wall.
It’s a brand new paradigm. The customer buys with money but gains nothing in return, unless you count “more phone calls” as a gain. Or mail from (ostensibly) famous names who probably don’t really know you. All this is supposed to make us feel good because we are “donating to a good cause” as a demonstration of our support for the democratic process.
How many people are employed in this industry? How much money is it costing us to keep it going? Whose idea was it to take those folks wall to wall, January to December, year after year? We’re all happy that they have all found steady work, and that their kids will get through all their orthodontic work and into the right colleges.
Sitting here, waiting in line at the four dollar pump, thinking about Senator Everett Dirksen, who once was reported to have said, “A billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.”
It makes one wonder which Eco Footprint is more important, the Ecological (Carbon) Footprint that is getting pretty soggy from all that so-called election traveling around over the last couple years, or the Economic (Dollar) Footprint that is getting rather thin and frayed.
One last thing: Over in Europe, they once had a Hundred Years War. We’re not going to do that with this latest tweak of the Election process, are we?