It should be no wonder that members of rural communities take great pride and pleasure to voice their concerns about the federal, state and municipal agendas. Certainly, to be inclusive of campaign strategies and related ethics. Should the complexities of campaign business have influenced candidates at the rural stratum so much? It seems to me that the capitalistic features, i.e., monetary donations, disbursements and being acknowledged by individuals and circles of note (at higher government), have significance, and have made quite an impression upon the citizenry of rural U.S.A.
Perhaps a more idyllic scenario could be imagined where a candidate would be presented as a well-educated, well-versed gentleperson who would seek incumbency without the financial assurances of party treasuries, business and corporate gifts or influential persona for image strengthening. Instead, this candidate would not refuse assistance from close friends and family members (albeit, to exclude their donations if personal business-related).
It would do this candidate well to consider the challenge, provided that personal funds are readily available, as bank loans are usually pursued for emergency situations and casual expenditures could render indebtedness and stir up some bad kharma.
Introducing oneself door-to-door would only require a dependable vehicle and gas budget. One thorough interview with the local newspaper would suffice.
The campaign methods should be rather simplistic, with more emphasis on forthcoming professional responsibilities and publicly stating socio-political concerns within rural U.S.A. Such efforts should be received as a newsworthy venture.
J. Maria Little-Siebert
Dolores
