Americans seem to believe that change in and of itself is virtue, that there is a special secular holiness in invoking the word, that nothing is finer for a politician than to be called an "agent of change."
I notice that politicians rarely say WHAT CHANGE they intend to make if chosen. There is a kind of deliberate ambiguity left hanging for the imagination. People seem to accept that, perhaps because they share the understanding that change is good, and that the old way, whatever it was, is bad.
There was a joke (now rendered meaningless by demographic change) that asked "how many Virginians are needed to change a light bulb?" The answer was "five." "One to change the bulb and four to discuss the virtues of the old bulb." My bias is showing.
Today we have the commander guy and "just plain Dick" embarked on a voyage of change. The traditional left (as opposed to the Jacobin neocons) may find the change desired by the dynamic duo to be repulsive but it is certainly change that they seek. any real conservative can "spot" that in a minute. We have the various Republican candidates mumbling obscurely about change. We have Hilary Clinton saying that she favors change worked out within the bounds of existing structure and system. Hmmm. A lot of us will favor that in spite of not having a clue about content. Then, there is Obama. He says that he comes not to play cards with the system, but rather to eliminate the system. I suspect that the American lust for change will "gag" on that. It sounds just a bit too messianic. Have we not had enough of people who know "the truth" and what is best for us? pl
Recent Comments