November 18th, 2008

How to Create Real Change


photo credit: michaelclower

Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, so too can destructive political ideologies persist, regardless of the package they are wrapped in. In order to create real political change, it is necessary to perform more than just a transfer of keys and titles; changing the guard does not change what is being guarded. Until we are able to have fresh blood in Washington, the contaminated cesspool of big-government socialists will not be threatened by any attempts for real change.

The KGB provides an interesting case study to further this point. According to Spiegel Online, a 2006 study asserts that 78% of Russia’s leaders were involved with the KGB before the country’s government structure was forced to make some stark changes. But are we to believe that the change in the political ideology, world view, and long-term goals of such individuals happened at the same time and speed as the fall of the iron curtain?

This question raises an important point regarding real change: political ideologies can use whatever vehicle necessary to achieve their agenda. Simply having the skeleton framework of a constitutional republic (as we do in our country) does not guarantee the security and propagation of liberty. A change in government does little good if those put in power share and advance the same ideas that the public had previously rejected.

Thus, it would behoove the next President—one who incessantly chanted the word “change” at every opportunity—to ensure that real change is created by refusing to associate with individuals who have long been part of the national political establishment, and who have continually advocated policies held up as sacrosanct by the Democratic elites. His recent nominations have shown a refusal to follow this course of action, therefore we can rest assured that the change he promised his followers will simply be a change in the guard—what is being guarded will not change under his presidency.

Real change—a different set of ideas, goals, and policies—rarely succeeds unless accompanied by radical action. Revolutions attempting to tear down tyranny and create real change have not always been physical and violent in nature, nor need they be. But proposing minor changes or slightly differing policy does not change the overall direction and goals, much like digging in the snow with a shovel does not deter the incoming avalanche. Until America rises up and demands new leadership, any change promised or implemented will simply be in furtherance of the same overall political agenda we’ve been subjected to for the past several decades.

The more things change, the more they stay the same…

10 Responses to “How to Create Real Change”

  1. Reach Upward
    November 18, 2008 at 6:53 pm #

    Jimmy Carter worked to keep Washington insiders out of the top posts of his administration. He ended up with a lot of very inexperienced people in charge. This brought change, alright — the kind of change that was roundly rejected four years later.

    Michael Barone has documented a cyclical pattern where Americans get fed up with Washington every four election cycles and opt for less experience (as a new generation of voters hits middle age). 1976 was one of those years. So were 1992 and 2008. 1944 was an anomaly because WWII was raging.

    The pattern continues with Americans having some buyer’s remorse for betting on inexperience. They tend to opt for experience the next three times around. This isn’t a perfect pattern, but it generally holds true.

    The fact is that Americans seem to usually prefer experience, even though, that experience carries with it all of the baggage of the bizarre world inside the DC beltway. After a few years of this, they’ve had their fill of insider corruption and go for less experience.

    What this means is less that the players in Washington need to change than that Americans need to change. If we really want different government, we can have it. Experience shows that in general, Americans really don’t want it — or at least don’t want to pay the price to get it. We get the government we tolerate, thus, we get the government we deserve.

  2. November 19, 2008 at 2:19 am #

    I agree that we do get the government we deserve as well. But do American’s really know what they can get? If we really understand the role of government, it is that government is the servant and We The People are the ruler. BUT only as long as we are a moral and good people. Then, would we not get a balanced government? Thus, government has found it’s way to make us The People, the servant.

    One of the reasons that American’s get what they want is because they DO NOT KNOW that they can get something better. We are brainwashed by the media, our education system, and so called public opinion etc. We are not given TRUTH in America. We are given a warped version of the truth and make erroneous decisions from a point of view that does not work. When we Americans learn to find truth as it is found in scripture, history and in the morals that have passed the test of time, THEN we can make a better estimate of where we wish to be.

    As Jefferson once stated the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. But who is being vigilant? Not very many people. But it seems to me that education is the key to finding the light. But it is the type of education that goes beyond the school house, the class room or the lab. It is found in the desires of men and women who want a better way of life and search diligently and process sound information to influence such outcomes. They are those who find TRUTH. Those who know the TRUTH have the greatest responsibility of findings those who are searching for it, join forces and bring about this “change” that people are talking about. We are the “vigilante” as they are called in Latin America….we hold the light, what will we do with it?

    I believe in this idea of what this Republic encourages us to do. Although I do not know all things, I do know that there is a God and that He is a God of freedom, dicipline and charity. We are meant to be something more than mere human beings. The ideology offered in this country is the labatory where the experiement of freedom can truly determine ones potential in life. May we find that potential and long live the Republic that has long been ignored!

  3. Connor
    November 19, 2008 at 8:30 am #

    Miracle of miracles: even CNN has noticed Obama’s lack of change in selecting individuals to help in his administration. And now the Associated Press has a story on it as well, as does Alex Jones and AlterNet.

  4. Curtis
    November 20, 2008 at 7:34 am #

    Just say no to Madeleine Albright… please.

  5. Curtis
    November 20, 2008 at 7:35 am #

    Like Jefferson said, we need a revolution every 20 years in this country.

  6. John C.
    November 20, 2008 at 7:45 am #

    I passionately hate that quote from Jefferson. It was a stupid thing to say and it shouldn’t be lauded as some sort of political guide. It makes Jefferson appear to desire bloodshed on a fairly regular basis in America, which, if it is accurate in expressing what the man actually thought, makes him both stupid and bloodthirsty. I never think about it without wanting to throw up a little in my mouth.

    End of threadjack; please continue.

  7. November 20, 2008 at 9:12 am #

    K – I just think the picture is creepy. . .

  8. vontrapp
    November 20, 2008 at 10:44 am #

    Revolutions don’t have to be bloody. And yes, we need revolutions to keep government in check, if history and our current state are any indication.

  9. John C.
    November 21, 2008 at 11:24 am #

    They don’t have to be bloody. Fair enough. Here’s the quote, “What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

    He elsewhere suggests that we need a revolution like the American Revolution (one involving quite a bit of spilled blood) every twenty years or so.

    He was a great devotee of liberty, but he also seemed to think regular bloody revolt was a good thing. That is, IMO, crazy.

  10. November 21, 2008 at 10:28 pm #

    Jefferson was what we might refer to as an anarchist during the revolution and somewhat thereafter. After the Constitution was ratified, he began to see it work. By this time, he had grown much older and wiser. He saw that this form of government was unique in history.

    As Washington’s Secretary of State he witnessed first hand the “stepping away from power” that Washington performed. He came to understand that elections could indeed be bloodless revolutions. Such a possibility had not been seriously considered by Jefferson before.

    Bottom line: Don’t hold his “youthful indescretions” against him. He learned, like many of the founders did, how different this nation was going to be.

Leave a Reply

Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.