CHANGE
Today, all the popular topics of conversation seem to revolve around the need for change. That's the case especially here in the USA, who's citizens are contemplating the election of a new president.Case in point: last night at dinner with friends I asked them who they were going to vote for in the upcoming presidential election. They both replied that they were still undecided. The ensuing discussion did bring about the consensus that the country is disgusted with the debacle that the Bush administration has wrought upon our country and thank God a president can only serve a maximum of two terms. Which of the two current candidates is capable of bringing about that change remained ~undecided.~
This morning, contemplating a post about change, I stumbled across an article written by Geoffrey Nunberg dated 1/14/08, titled "Chump Change."
Some salient, (I think), points from this article bear well on the current claims from the candidates' call for change in our government.
- Eisenhower campaigned (after 20 years of democrats in power) on the official slogan: "It's time for change."
- 1976: Jimmy Carter is"a leader for change."
- 1992: Bill Clinton is "the change we need."
I don't think much has changed in the two years since they wrested control (with our help, i.e. voters) from the republicans..
The bottom line here is that we each vote for the candidate that we hope will enact policies that will make our lives better.
Well, there in lies the rub: I have a great life, a great job that I love. I have a comfortable life that I don't want to change substantially. Now if the change you want betters your circumstances without diminishing mine then I'm all for it. Otherwise I oppose your choice.
It's always about the money, and it's always personal.
If congress wanted change we'd have had it long before now. Congress, like me, likes things just the way they are just fine.
posted by rel at 9:57 AM
9 Comments:
stumbled upon this blog... great read... love the political cartoon... so true.
I don't know about US politics, but I do know that I personally thrive on change.
I hate things getting stagnant! (explains the hair!!)
So that's where the saying comes from 'the more things change, the more they stay the same'? From US politics?
Actually I'm sure politicians the world over try to convince us THEY will be the ones to make things different!
Another intelligent and incisive post Rel.
You are one of the lucky few who are fine in the current economy.
change seems to be a very clever hiding place while the issues that need to be discussed are being avoided... not just now,, but over the course of history.....
Yes, we all want to preserve what we have ... I totally get that. But, our country needs an overall shift that will once again propel us back into a leading place of respect & relevance. As we've seen in the past few weeks with the financial crisis - the greater good does need to prevail.
Peace,
JP/deb
technically. i have a great life too. if i voted on my life circumstances, i wouldn't need to vote for change.
however, there are aspects of the current administration which don't affect me which i believe need to be changed.
for example:
i am not in Iraq and i don't have immediate family in Iraq. but, i am mad at the administration for sending troops there. the war, so far, hasn't affected my life personally, but that doesn't mean i don't take the war personally.
i do take it personally because 1) soldiers are dying 2) our army is spread thin and this makes our nation vulnerable 3) we never got osama bin laden for all the effort we have made in the last 7 years
***
Hey brother, can you spare a dime? Oops, sorry. Wrong kind of change.
We are the same age. I have lived in France, England and Canada. Politicians up for their first election have all promised change. Although I sometimes vote to keep one group out of power, my vote usually goes, not to the one who can make MY life better, but to the one who can improve the other guy's life.
Post a Comment
<< Home