Hickory's One Percent -- Silence DoGood

Quite often in the distribution of wealth, be it tangible assets (those things that can readily be converted to cash) or monetary value and cash on hand, we often hear of the top 1 percent. Those persons own and hold a sizeable portion of the wealth and value of the entire United States, 34.6% of net wealth and 42.7% of the financial wealth in 2007. When you consider that is just the top 1% of persons in the population and in 2007, that’s roughly 285,000 people who own a sizeable chunk of everything. So what I want to do here is examine this group and their sense of entitlement to the positions they hold.

I want to focus on that 1% and their sense of entitlement to be in the positions they hold in society and work consistently to maintain them. And here the question is first asked, “Who has power in America?” The naïve would say that the ‘people’ as a collective have the power. Alas, if this were only true. First of all, if it were true, it would denote an institution of Socialism in this country. Well, we know that can’t be possible or even true. Although this concept of people in control existed prior to the fomenting of the concept of Socialism as a formal understanding. However, power resides with those who own income producing land or businesses. So if you want to know who is truly in charge, who really wields great influence, who can get things done, now you know. Is this a recent development? Not really. If you look back across the history of the United States and before, you will see the bulk of those in power or positions of influence as being affluent in their time and held tangible assets that held sizeable value or could be used to generate sizeable income.

That cuts against your notions of what America is, doesn’t it? I know, me too. It doesn’t mean however that the social elites are in complete dominion over everyone else. But this class view of who they are cuts across the centuries and generations. The behaviors of these social elites takes it’s cue from the practices of the nobility in the countries from which many of us trace our roots. In that regard, I’ll offer you these points to ponder. The means by which these elites are educated, from the day or boarding schools starting in the lower grades all the way through the exclusive universities. The places these people live. The ways in which the elites socialize with each other at the members only country club, the debutante ball, membership in exclusive organizations such as the Junior League or a particular golf course. Each of those organizations are exclusive by virtue that they charge exorbitant fees to be a member, you much be voted on or sponsored by an existing member in many cases, and by virtue of those parameters, the organization can exclude people from membership. The elites live in certain older established neighborhoods, socially desirable downtown digs, or gated and secure communities in more rural environs. Each of these facets eludes to exclusivity and association only with their own kind or type of person in their social class. Newly wealthy are assimilated into the class. This is a small group of persons, remember? They know each other, and atypically only associate with each other. For those that have known success for generations, these families have intermingled, married, and entwined themselves and consolidated their holdings and status. And lastly, lest we forget, this same group of people also share a common viewpoint of the world and the things in it.


What does all of that have to do with Hickory? Just this. If you use that same percentage of 1%, that equates to 400 core people of influence in a population of 40,000. Now, when you factor a spouse, children, and siblings, that number can grow exponentially. If you conservatively figure that there are at least 3 other people in around each nuclear core person in the model of 400, that’s 1,600 people. The significance in that is, if you consider that is a core voting nucleus, in Hickory, that carries significant weight and influence. That is enough people to take any local election in Hickory when you consider the voter turn out in the off years. To illustrate that point, I’ve compiled tables of the municipal elections in Hickory since 1999. Look at the numbers and consider the implications of what I’ve just pointed out.

1999 Hickory Municipal Election
Candidate	Ward 1	Ward 2	Ward 3		Ward 4	Ward 5	Ward 6	Mayor
Jay Adams	1,743
	37.7%
Hamilton Ward	2,893
	61.9%
Write In	17
	0.36%
Bruce Meisner		2,646
		54.7%
Wilfred A. Wells		2,171
		44.8%
Write In		25
		0.52%
Danny Seaver			3,662
			98.2%
Write In			69
			1.8%

2001 Hickory Municipal Election
Candidate	Ward 1	Ward 2	Ward 3		Ward 4	Ward 5	Ward 6	Mayor
Pat Moss								2,653
								43.1%
Rudy Wright								3,478
								57.0%
Write In								22
								0.00%
Z. Ann Hoyle					4,373
					96.8 %
Write In					146
					3.2%
Sally Fox						3,211
						53.1%
Jerry Phillips						2,825
						47.0%
Write In						12
						0.00%
W. Grimes Byerly							2,880
							49.6%
C. John Watts							2,930
							50.4%

2003 Hickory Municipal Election
Candidate	Ward 1	Ward 2	Ward 3		Ward 4	Ward 5	Ward 6	Mayor
Brad Lail	2,457
	97.1%
Write In	74
	2.9%
Gary Ewing		1,486
		44.3%
Bruce Meisner		1,868
		55.6%
Write In		4
		0.01%
Danny Seaver			2,465
			98.4%
Write In			39
			1.6%

2005 Hickory Municipal  Election
Candidate	Ward 1	Ward 2	Ward 3		Ward 4	Ward 5	Ward 6	Mayor
Jay Adams								2,105
								42.1%
Rudy Wright								2,906
								57.9%
Z. Ann Hoyle					2,822
					59.5%
Larry Pope					1,921
					40.5%
Sally Fox						4,178
						100%
Jill Patton							3,151
							63.5%
C. John Watts							1,814
							36.5%

2007 Hickory Municipal Election
Candidate	Ward 1	Ward 2	Ward 3		Ward 4	Ward 5	Ward 6	Mayor
Brad Lail	2,095
	58.2%
Nancy Willingham	1,496
	41.6%
Write In	9
	0.02%
Bruce Meisner		2,819
		96.8%
Write In		93
		3.2%
Danny Seaver			2,194
			66.4%
Lee Wilson			1,106
			33.4%
Write In			5
			0.02%

2009 Hickory Municipal  Election
Candidate	Ward 1	Ward 2	Ward 3		Ward 4	Ward 5	Ward 6	Mayor
Rudy Wright								1,923
								95.7%
Write In								86
								4.3%
Z. Ann Hoyle					658
					29.2%
Hank Guess					1,586
					70.4%
Write In					9
					0.04%
Sally Fox						1,753
						97.2%
Write In						50
						2.8%
Jill Patton							1,422
							66.2%
Harry Hipps							721
							33.6%
Write In							4
							0.02%

What these tables demonstrate, at a glance, is that 20 persons, excluding write-ins have run for office in the last 6 municipal elections from 1999 – 2009, and:

10 or 50% were first time candidates and lost.
4 or 20% ran three times and won three times.
2 or 10% ran twice and won twice.
1 or 5% ran twice and lost twice.
1 or 5% ran twice and won the first and lost the second.
1 or 5% ran three times and won two and lost the third.
1 or 5% ran once and won once.


Now, think back to how this all started. Remember those power elites that hold and wield power with the shared attributes? How 1% of the entire population was quite probably deciding the outcomes of the elections, who is elected, and who will represent the entire city and determine the path the City and it’s population is to follow and the City’s vision for the future. Taking that 1% and expanding their span of immediate influence in just their own immediate families, you have 1,600 people that think, act, vote, and associate themselves in a like manner on an array of varying topics and political viewpoints. Look at the impact with citywide voting and the immediate impact that 1600 votes have. The weaker the turnout during any election cycle, the more power those votes yield. During the 2001 election cycle, which had the strongest voter turnout of the all the contests examined, there was a total of 22,530 votes cast for all candidates. Now in reality, that is probably about 6,200 voters that turned out. I say probably because the highest vote tally cast for any seat that year was 6,153 and I don’t have the exact voter turnout data. So in that scenario, those 1,600 votes would account for 26% of all the votes cast. Compare that to the weakest voter turnout election cycle, which was 2009. The same seats at stake in 2009 were the same seats up in 2001. However, while 22,530 total votes were cast in 2001, only 8,212 total votes were cast in 2009. Again, the total number of voters would be in the 2,275 range due to the largest number of votes cast in any one race this cycle were 2,253, and the approximations are for the same reasons as previously stated. The difference however is the effect of those 1600 core voters. The representative ratio just jumped 50% so that those 1600 represent 75% of the voters who went to the polls in 2009. Folks, that’s how you maintain control and keep the focus and the impetus on just those things that you deem important, relative, and you ensure that your interests are looked after and safe. You are making certain that the rules, if any are formulated, are in your favor. If you can maintain that hypothetical 75% ratio of the vote, even if there is decent, it can very quickly and easily be pushed aside and played off as a minor disgruntling or sore loser syndrome.

Now, is any of this scientific or empirical as proof of what is going on? I’m sorry to say no, it isn’t. But if you think about the who, the why, and the how of the way things work, who the repeat players are, and the successes of certain people and the falls from grace for others, patterns begin to develop. When you see those correlations between people, it’s not hard to draw reasonable inferences based on those correlations. That core group of people you and I will never see. They move behind the scenes to cloak their agendas and because they don’t want the associations mentioned here to be public knowledge. But they exist. The numbers can be quantified, but the persons will remain nameless, unless one of elites chose to break ranks and expose the charade of power. But there is no incentive to do that. However, there is hope.

The hope is in the numbers themselves. When you fail to vote, you are denying yourselves the representation that you so desperately demand and for which you cry out. If you do not get redress of grievance from the government that currently occupies the offices of your representatives, then it is time to replace them. We have the power of numbers and if you want change and a voice, then you have to exercise both. Those in power will listen or they will be replaced. We outnumber the power elite, but we have to exercise the power of superior numbers and never pause whenever an election is in contention. It is too late to do anything about 2011. No one found enough interest to file for any contest in the November election. If you want a voice, then someone has to stand up to be counted.