Change Is Not Reform
When John Randolph (1773-1833) was persuaded that certain politicians in the early 19th century were pushing America away from her roots as a Republic and toward a democracy, he cried foul. He opposed what he viewed as attempts to remove distinctions of class and rank, and thereby to level society.
Randolph clung to tradition, states’ rights, and the conservatism that Russell Kirk would praise him for defending over a century later, while simultaneously attacking America’s levelers head on. And when the proponents of democracy, and then broadened democracy, pushed for “change” in the name of reform, he fought as a man whose very life was at stake.
“Change is not reform,” retorted Randolph, and so expressed a sentiment that conservatives from every era have shared.
During the century prior to Randolph, the renowned Edmund Burke fought similar strivings for “change” in England. It was 1770 when Burke gave Englanders his version of “change is not reform” by blaming the push for such change on the base passions of a people excited to class warfare and insatiability. He argued that complaints against a structured society, “[murmuring] at the present possessors of power …[and lamenting] the past,” were but “the necessary effects of the ignorance and [instability] of the [people].”
Both Randolph and Burke understood that the “change” their contemporaries pursued would not result in reforms from bad policies to good ones, but in a loss of liberty. More than anything, both men knew that “change” was just a catch-all term opening the way for governments to interfere with private matters in the name of leveling the playing field or shrinking the financial gap between rich and poor. And the only real benefactor in such a scenario would always be the government.
In the 20th century, Presidents Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929) and Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) exemplified the conviction of Randolph and Burke.
Hope and Change. At the end of four years of Obama, you will be left with no hope and a little loose change in your pockets. I just find it stunning how naive Americans can be. Obama never held any executive position and he never ran anything, not a business, a town, a city, or a state. He ran nothing in his whole life and he was in the Senate for less than two years, yet this guy was qualified to be president of the United States. Shows you that in today’s media society, anybody can be packaged and sold to the public, just like tires or toothpaste. How pathetic. For those of you who disagree, how’s that economy and unemployment working out for you these days? And don’t even think about blaming this on Bush, because he never even came close to spending the amounts of money Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are spending (and just wait if this healthcare bill is passed and see what that does to our national budget). As for foreign policy? Well, I think Obama’s foreign policy can be summed up in the picture of him bowing, yes bowing, to the emperor of Japan. The once great United States is now groveling to everyone, including monarchs and dictators, around the world. Yup, that’s change you can believe in.
It seems likely to me that there will be some sort of health care bill [takeover] in 2010. Considering that, just what is needed to repeal that bill’s effects? This may be more than a single issue, since Obambi and company also intend to saddle us with taxes disguised as Cap and Trade as well as immegration reform in the form of amnesty for 12 million plus illegal aliens.
“Change” can be either positive or negative.
Perhaps when the next politican offers up a campaign slogan as vaporous as this one, America will have enough sense to ask which meaning of change is meant.
Thanks for the history. I always appreciate the background you provide.
The upshot of the sort of “change” sought by the Obama administration is the metastatic growth of government at the expense of individual liberty.
Your mention of Edmund Burke brought to mind this Thomas Sowell essay…
Burke and Obama
(Burke) also warned that “those who attempt to level, never equalise.” What they end up doing is concentrating power in their own hands — and Burke saw such new powers as dangerous, even if they were used only sparingly at first.
“Constitute government how you please, infinitely the greater part of it must depend upon the exercise of the powers which are left at large to the prudence and uprightness of ministers of state.”
This is a problem, given that we currently have very few actual statesmen (and women) in the national government and are, rather, saddled with a plethora of deal makers and tedious, self-serving manipulators.
The Republic can be killed through ignorance, too, such as a Nancy Pelosi determined to deliver a fiscal and liberty disaster in the form of a bill for “her” President.
“Change” is just liberal-speak for “we’re going to control every facet of your life.”
To “tanstaafl” – great quotes from Burke. The “change” Obama promises has been rejected by tax-paying citizens for the very reasons cited in your post – they do not want to be pulled down into poverty.
I believe it is all crumbling before Obama’s eyes. We see who we’ve elected and more and more people are unhappy about it. The change I long for is coming in 2010.
6. Jeff:
“Change” is just liberal-speak for “we’re going to control every facet of your life.”
Thanks Jeff. This blog just translated Obama-nomics for me. It’s “Chains you can believe in”.
Those chains are the chains of slavery to massive government control over the lives of the taxpayers. The bait is entitlement. Oh snap!
Obama is the final result of affirmitive action. A black man who has been given everything because of his race, including the Presidency. Yes he is a great speaker, but other than his tongue, his head is empty. So are the heads of those who voted for him. Stand by for the greatest backlash in American history. PC is dead!!!!
Gernot, President Obama is a terrible speaker without his teleprompter; otherwise, he speaks gibberish gobbledygook with enough “erss” & “um’s” to quickly fill a big jar. The man speaks eloquent jargon or pointless platitudes. In other words, Obama says nothing in as many words possible. Obama’s so-called talent can be seen in other newsreaders in the MSM. He is not a talented speaker since he would be able to recover & think on the fly without his script. Off script, Obama is a mess. Why? He does not believe any of the words he speaks…
Change is not necessarly progress.
Lincoln………
John Randolph, eh? He would be turning over in his grave if he knew that blacks and women can now (gasp) vote. If you never change, then you never make progress; that’s the other side of tis little history lesson.
And you know, Strom, we might be better off if you and your Dixiecrats had won, right?
Seriously, John Randolph? Might as well drag out Calhoun while you’re going through the crazy 19th century thing you’ve got going for you.
I hope they don’t pay you to write this nonsense.
Hitler and Stalin were into change, too… doesn’t make it good.
♪ mmm mmm mmm ♪ Welcome to Obamacare ♪ mmm mmm mmm ♪ Present!!! ♪ mmm mmm mmm ♪ Michelle has her own plan and it’s better than yours. ♪ mmm mmm mmm ♪ The congress has its own plan and you can’t have it! ♪ mmm mmm mmm ♪ Good luck! ♪ mmm mmm mmm ♪