This is written in response to the wonderful article by Austen Bundy, check it out here. Say what you want about Barack Obama’s policies or politics, but the man knows how to sell a campaign slogan. Change What a simple yet amazingly complicated concept. It was such a successful idea that even Obama’s opponent John McCain turned his campaign strategy to “change”. Nothing seems to bring people across the aisle like change. However, change is like the word “equality” or “liberty”; everyone is in favor of it in broad terms but when things get specific the unanimity quickly fades. For example, who would say they do not believe in equality?
Does that mean you favor Affirmative Action to help African Americans achieve equality? No Mr. Gibson, that is unfairly benefitting one group and the opposite of equality. Well, is a system that has disproportionately and unequally punished said group with limited economic, social and political opportunities equal? Besides, what kind of equality are we taking about? Equality of achievement? That’s socialism. Equality of opportunity? That seems impossible. Everyone treated equally under the law? That sounds great but I can think of a few examples where that has not been the case. Besides, the context of cases always vary. Right? So while everyone may act like they love change because everyone has complaints and things they want to get fixed, those changes are as various and diverse as the populace of this nation. That’s why, as much as everyone acts like they are in favor of change, we as a society actually loathe change. Why the hate? It is because change can go one of three ways. One, the conditions get better. Two, the conditions get worse. Three, the conditions stay roughly the same. Notice that two of these options are not good. I may not be a mathematician but it seems that the odds are not in change’s favor (assuming there is an equal chance of all three outcomes and in actuality it may be even more unlikely for option one to happen 33% of the time). Change comes at a cost too and when option three is the result then the cost-benefit analysis does not exactly seem to compute. Why pay for the status quo? It’s already there. As much as students may want change in education, all you have to do is flip 2nd block and 3rd block or make 4th block 10 minutes later. Chaos will ensue. Even minor changes rock the boat to such a degree that change seems terrifying. Imagine radical changes like doing away with tests or going to the trimester system and then forecast the resulting fear and rabble. So this path is where the American Revolution and Brexit of 2016 meet, the common plane of change. Both countries faced changes they did not like. For America it was losing their autonomy to make political, social and economic decisions without British interference. Many were simply seeking a return to the status quo, a reaction against change rather than radical change itself. One could paraphrase Patrick Henry, “Give me salutary neglect or give me death”. Britain was also looking to gain back autonomy, lost in a new world order where Europe’s financial struggles became a communal burden. One felt worst by the United Kingdom and Germany. Both sought to restore their relationship to the outside world to its perceived glory years. Herein lies a major difference though, unlike America, Britain actually had glory years. The British Empire was mighty and dominant, giving them wealth, prestige and hegemonic dominance. The colonies greatest accomplishment was convincing the U.K. to not worry about and meddle with them for over 150 years. The other major difference was who did the leading. The colonists were young. In 1776, Thomas Jefferson was 33 years old, James Madison was 25, Thomas Paine was 39, John Adams was 41 and Georg Washington was 44. Remember the youngest President in American history was 40 years and 6 months. The Brexit was led by the older generation. The thin margin was led by older, less formally educated and poorer Britons. While those terms do not really describe the Founding Fathers, the people actually doing the fighting in the American Revolution were poor farmers and therefore could find a kinship with this reactionary policy. In the end though, Bundy is right. The fundamental question whenever a change is made is…now what? Which of the three options are in the future. America had to build something up, create a completely new structure that was modeled after British systems but given a muddled and bipolar American touch. Britain appears to be tearing down quite rapidly but what it replaces it with will determine its success. Will they go back to living like its 1916 instead of 2016? Will they find a new role in the world that is more isolated in the era of globalization and what costs will that bring? Great Britain certainly has better odds in 2016 than fledgling America had in 1789 but we all know about countries defying the odds. Change forces us into action but it also paralyzes us with fear. It often leads to inaction because of a murky future. It makes the American Revolution so difficult to define, was it a change or a reaction against change? The simple answer is…yes. The complicated answer is still being written by the American people today.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorFollow me @MrG_Unit Archives
August 2016
Categories
All
|