Light is Right Joe Campbell
“Why?” the householder asked, when the candidate stopped by.
“Why?”
“Why are you running for Parliament?”
“I want the big salary Members of Parliament get,” the candidate replied. “It’s more than twice what I’m making now.”
“Surely, that’s not the only reason.”
“Of course not,” the candidate said. “I also want the great pension MPs qualify for after only six years. No one I know of has anything like it.”
“You’ll have to do better than that if you expect my vote,” the householder said.
“Oh, I intend to,” the candidate replied. “Once elected, I aim to focus on the perks. You know, the wining, dining and traveling at public expense.”
“I thought you’d be seeking election to represent the people in your constituency.”
“Oh, I do want to represent them,” the candidate said. “Otherwise, I won’t be able to access the salary, pension and perks.”
“Representing your constituents is a means to an end?”
“On the contrary,” the candidate said, “it’s a means to a beginning. Once I represent them, I can begin living really well.”
“You want to get elected to live high on the hog,” the householder said.
“I didn’t know hogs had the vote.”
“I usually ask candidates whether they lean to the right or the left of the political spectrum.”
“Either is fine with me,” the candidate said. “Both locations qualify me for the same salary, pension and perks.”
“Politicians on the left say they’re committed to helping the underdog,” the householder explained.
“I didn’t know dogs had the vote.”
“You no doubt have established priorities for serving your constituents,” the householder said.
“Absolutely,” the candidate replied. “My first priority is to get elected.”
“I suppose that’s reasonable,” the householder said. “Unless you get elected you can’t serve. Your second priority, I suspect, is more substantive.
“Very substantive,” the candidate said. “My second priority is to get re-elected.”
“The economy is the leading issue for most voters,” the householder said. “I want my member of Parliament to promote long term prosperity.”
“Short term prosperity is better for my re-election,” the candidate said. “Besides. I’m a Keynesian on this point. Keynes noted that in the long run we are all dead.”
“For the sake of my investments, I expect the Member of Parliament who represents me to promote bull markets and resist bear markets.
“I didn’t know bulls and bears had the vote.”
“Prosperity,” the householder said, “depends a great deal on keeping roads, bridges and other infrastructure in good repair. I hope you agree.”
“I couldn’t disagree more,” the candidate said. “When I cut ribbons it will be for opening exciting new infrastructure, not fixing boring old stuff. The photo ops are better for what’s new.”
“Aren’t you concerned about the negative publicity you’ll get when the roads disintegrate and the bridges collapse?”
“That’s nothing,” the candidate replied, “compared with the positive publicity I’ll get when new roads and bridges replace them.”
“Out with the old, in with the new will be your political legacy, I suppose. But it seems to me you’ll add significantly to the national debt that those not yet born will have to shoulder.”
“I didn’t know the unborn had the vote.”
“Their parents and grandparents do.”
“Anyhow,” the candidate said, “Out with the old, in with the new is an operating principle, not a legacy. My political legacy will accrue to my post-political occupation. While in office, I intend to accumulate as much inside information as possible, so that when I leave I can take up a lucrative career as a paid lobbyist.”
“You intend to lobby government for favours on behalf of the highest bidders?
“The higher, the better,” the candidate replied.
“Well,” the householder said, “You’ve got my vote. Truth and transparency are what I value most in government. You are the most truthful and transparent politician I’ve ever met. You are truthful, aren’t you?”
“To a fault,” the candidate replied.
“And transparent?”
“You should be able to see right through me.”
