The Stupidness of “Change for Change’s sake” Politics

Change the World


“Change for Change’s Sake”

One tires of the silly political talk.

Talk to “Change” as if “Change” itself were somehow not present without the candidate’s personal direct action, and somehow a goal.

Would you invite someone into your workplace who promises to “mix it up” but has no real purpose?

Would you bring a disruptive house-guest into your home just to create “change” (yeah, maybe he could cook your pets on the barbecue as a start on getting the flavor of “change”)?

First what a change agent does is increase the rate of change, and possibly steer change if they actually have control.  Remember the wisdom in the saying “nothing is more certain than change.”

So what these talking heads are on about is accelerating the rate of change.

Fun stuff, given the widely held angst among the people about the already accelerated rates of change in their lives.

Being a change agent at best offers experimenting on the systems of society with engineered packages of “seeds of change.” 

It is unrealistic that any “seeds of change” would be without unintended consequences.

And look at our country’s two candidates – effective change agents? 

Hardly.  Neither could effectively bring their respective party into line and effect enough change among the like-thinkers that surround them to make them the early natural candidate for their party.

If they can’t even act as change agents in the company of like-minded friends, how can they possibly have the wisdom to tailor the “seeds of change” in the wider world?

The goading of the media to get them to promise to change “this and that” as campaign promises leaves this writer cold. 

The voter needs to vote for the underlying principles the candidate holds.  How steadfast that candidate holds to their principles is hugely important on the world stage.  Wavering is seen as weakness in the big game.

My personal take is the candidate should be solidly a constitutionalist.  That explained about me should make it pretty self-evident that I no longer have a horse in this race.  We’ll the best fit hasn’t dropped out officially, but his small handful of delegates are more a pride & policy statement than a political force.

Will the voter notice the difference between the two candidates? 

One promising Change for Change’s sake, modifying even his own words to meet the latest goals.  Chameleon in values, excepting he will work to cause change.  Whoopee!  That should be quite a ride.

The other making changes noises in response to the media led clamor for change.  Bit less of a Chameleon, but still someone who considers the Constitution not as much as guidance, but more as a legal/not-legal reference. 

Not thrilled here, but do know that Change for Change’s Sake is just stupid.




6 comments so far

  1. Jeff, KE9V on

    “Will the voter notice the difference between the two candidates?”

    As a lifelong member of the GOP I notice that McCain isn’t within a hundred yards of the party principles.

    I notice that Republicans are less than enthusiastic at the prospect of McCain winning the White House.

    I notice that McCain would like to continue the eternal war in Iraq and counter every attempt to get us out by telling us how much military “experience” he has and continuing to propagate “the threat”.

    I notice that at 71 years of age McCain shows some signs of not always being on top of the situation — what will he be like three years from now?

    I’m backing Obama (first Democrat I will ever have voted for) because I see in him a spirit not unlike that of Ronald Reagan — he seems to exude a leadership quality that has been missing in Washington since the Gipper.

    He doesn’t have the experience of a guy who is covered in cobwebs from sitting in the Senate for 35 years, but I’m betting that will prove to be an asset.

    Like it or not, the Republicans have squandered their shot at power and are fading into obscurity. Their feckless growth of the government — 10 times bigger than any Democratic wet-dream AND lowering taxes — is ending.

    Clinton left Bush a surplus, Bush will leave Obama a record deficit. That’s been the Republican story for the last eight years and I’ve grown weary of it.

    I predict a Democrat landslide in November. President Obama and a 60 seat pick-up in the House.

    When McCain and Obama debate later this year, McCain will look 120 next to Obama and that won’t go unnoticed by voters…

  2. k9zw on

    No predictions from this end Jeff, as like the Bookies see it, I see things much closer.

    Do think the 60 seat swing isn’t going to happen. Current polls don’t support it, and the temperament of the people is to have the control split.

    Can our current political situation & system produce candidates worthy of support?

    Really wondering.


  3. Jeff, KE9V on

    I think that those who are the *very best* qualified to be the chief executive of the country aren’t going to run for the office — the American people have way too many hangs ups.

    The candidate has to be religious, but not too religious, and it has to be the proper kind of superstition too. He/she has to be conservative but not too conservative. The ability to manage and assemble an organization that can raise around $500 million dollars is required. And while the public expects them to tell the truth, when they do and we don’t like what they say we reject them.

    The Republicans are ALWAYS going to paint the Democratic candidate as someone who will increase taxes while the Democrats are ALWAYS going to say the Republican candidate is going to kill social security. It’s the old Potomac two-step and playing on the fears of an ignorant public ALWAYS works.

    Only a narcissist would choose to run and be subject to any possible skeletons in the closet, no matter how big or small — that time you went skinny dipping in high school WILL come back to haunt you forty years later… A new twist this cycle — apparently you now have to preemptively apologize for anything that anyone you might have ever met might have said — even if it pre-dated your birth…

    Between the news media and the ‘Karl Rove’ dirty attack mentality, the abuse to potential candidates is such as to guarantee that anyone smart enough to make a really great executive is also smart enough to avoid it.

    It reminds me of the old quote about jury’s — something about your fate being determined by 12 stupid people — with the implication being that jurors are stupid because “smart” people know how to get out of jury duty.

    As for the Fall elections, I’m standing by a landslide.

    The 60-65 seat pick-up for the Dems in Congress wasn’t a number picked out of the air by me. Those numbers and ideas are floating in the media and were highlighted by Newt Gingrich’s recent memo to the GOP about the very real possibility of a November slaughter.

    Gas could be $5 by November and the Fed is going to have to raise interest rates to save the dollar which will take more steam out of the economy. Food prices are marching along at such a clip that everyone is going to take notice of the substantially higher cost of living and whether it’s fair or not, the buck is going to stop with the party in the White House.

    The Republicans who recently blocked the windfall profits tax on big oil companies, the Republicans who fiddled away a trillion dollars of US treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan while the American economy burned, the Republicans who ok’d the no-bid military contracts, the Republicans who supported the suspension of habeus corpus — these are all going to be HUGE TARGETS in the Fall elections…

  4. k9zw on

    Hi Jeff

    Autumn will tell on the makeup of congress. Will have to see.

    The tail end comments on Big Oil and Suspension of habeus corpus both deserve further reading.

    The media lead cry to punish Big Oil for economic successes flies in the face of a free & stable laize faire economy and also would mess with my pension .

    The habeus corpus issue with Enemy Combatants has over two centuries of US Case Law that oppose this latest twist from the Supremes. It is worth reading the Syllabus they released (which is NOT the actual opinion – that comes later) and pay particular attention to the dissent starting on Page 110.

    There may be unintended consequences of the Supremes muddling & fiddling. Would think it better to let our allies take prisoners than have them suddenly afforded the rights reserved for our citizenry. Perhaps they won’t even make it off the battlefield, though I expect that would be on-the-spot unofficial decision making by our soldiers fighting this war.

    Back to the main premise “Change for the Sake of Change” is about all we’re being offered for November, and that remains a unworthy substitute for actual principles and goals.


  5. Jeff, KE9V on

    You’ll note that I didn’t say that I was for the windfall profit tax on big oil companies. Generally speaking I don’t think those work — big oil would simply pass that cost on to customers anyway.

    BUT — in an election year, appearance is everything. With gas prices topping $4 and finally causing some pain to consumers, AND with weekly announcements about RECORD oil company profits, to have the Republican’s shoot down that bill makes them look even more in bed with big oil than the fact that GW Bush is an ex oil man. It might have been a principled move, but watch the Dems use it to beat McCain around like the GOP has used Rev Wright to beat Obama.

    The Bill of Rights should be completely sacrosanct. There should not be special laws enacted by presidential order suspending the Constitution because the legal power to do that only exists in the imagination of Bush and Cheney.

    BIG changes are coming. Better get ready for it.


  6. Morris on


    Re: Change for change sake

    Change for the sake of it is the flip side of “we have to do something about problem X, and it doesn’t matter what it is we do, as long as we do something.” This is the politician’s mantra, rather than the physician’s of “first, do no harm.” “First, do no harm,” reminds us that there are often unforeseen consequences of any action. If we do not thoroughly understand how things work, the “change for change sake” or “we have to do something, anything” approach will likely produce disastrous effects.

    Case in point: FDR’s response to the recession he inherited as well as Hoover’s response to the recession under his watch. Hoover increased taxes, pushing us further into the recession (this should be a warning for Obama who is hell bent on raising taxes, but he is too arrogant to learn from history–he knows it all–he sure didn’t learn a thing from JFK’s meeting with NK with regard to conducting foreign policy). FDR tried anything and everything. Mostly, he aided industries (his buddies) in cartelizing those industries, raising prices and cutting production (this was his NRA). He did more to prolong the Great Depression than anyone or anything else. The reason was he listened to those who claimed that there was no theory to guide them, so just do anything.

    Obama denies both theory and history, or rather, since he denies theory, he draws the wrong conclusions from history.

    Again, the expanded version of the dictum in politics is “do anything (change), no matter if it works or not, at least the voters will see that we are changing things, and we can always blame our political opponents and their supporters if things go wrong.”

    “First, do no harm,” is a much wiser, much sounder approach.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: