It's been a quite unacceptably long time since my last post. In case you do read this, thank you for your loyalty.
My topic today is going to be change. It seems that there simply isn't enough to go around, or at least, not enough to please some people.
In the USA, Mr Obama's message of 'Change you can believe in' and 'a hope of change' (or is it 'a change of hope', which would be no less platitudinous) seems to have gripped the popular imagination to an astonishing degree. In the UK, both of the main political parties are anxious to declare themselves the party of Change.
In both countries, this message has become incredibly popular. I really want to understand why. You see, my main opinion has always been that it is only necessary to change things which have failed, or are going to fail. I acknowledge that I am, even by my own reckoning, a hidebound and reactionary conservative, but I will try to approach this discussion without prejudice.
Let's get the standard arguments out of the way first. To begin with, it really does seem true that most people respond better to positive or optimistic messages than to negative and pessimistic ones. This is the real reason why negative campaigning is not as popular as a cynic would expect. Certainly, conventional wisdom (CW) seems to credit much of the extraordinary appeal of Mr Obama to the positivity of his message.
'Hold fast to that which is good' says Thessalonians, chapter something, verse whatever. (Not being a Christian, I am free to quote only those bits of the Bible with which I agree. Doubtless there's a verse that says the opposite, but it's up to you to find it.) The Romans even went so far as to define 'pietas' as one of their cardinal virtues. Roughly translated, it means a respect for tradition and conservatism. And their empire lasted at least seven hundred years. (Not counting the sad, drawn-out demise of the Empire in the East.) So why is an argument for Change now perceived as positive? What is to be Changed? Why is this not at least as important as a promise to effect Change?
You see, the general tone of public discourse in American politics is, in fact, significantly more optimistic and patriotic than that of this country (reflecting ... but perhaps that's a digression too far). British politicians seem allowed to spend a lot of time grumbling about how awful the country is rapidly becoming (although it never seems to happen entirely), but American politicians aren't. It simply appears to be too negative to resonate with voters.
So if the British Weltanschauung really, truly, was that the country is in rapid decline and needed saving, I might accept Change as a message of Hope. However, even in the case of the British, I don't quite believe the gloomy act. And Americans, to use a very crude stereotype, seem mostly to be much more positive about the world than the British. I'd go so far as to say that in almost any regard, the USA is better off than almost any other country. So a message of vague, unspecified Change seems not too far from starting a speech with 'we are fortunate to live in the greatest country in the world, so please support me in my mission to Change it'.
Basically, I'm saying that, of course, no country is perfect. But advocating unspecified change seems to suggest that the country is, on balance, a bad place. Is that really the message of Hope?
