Do Americans Want Change?

Yes, if change means that their personal well being would improve. No, if they would need to change what they do or think. In his presidential campaign, now President Elect, was very careful in talking about change in very generic terms, so every potential voter could see it as some good that would be delivered to him or her on a gold plate. In the acceptance speech Mr. Obama mentioned that sometimes he might disagree with people who elected him. Since then, "difficult decisions" become a phrase present in almost every his public statement.

Straight shooters, like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, telling voters bluntly, how it is, had no chance, since voters elect politicians who tell them what they want to hear. Theoretically, in a democratic system, it is supposed to be this way. Elected politicians should represent the voice of their constituents. Ideally, someone who shares the opinions of the majority should run and win the election. It is simpler in a small community; should we build a new library or rebuild the old one? Even if the wrong decision is made, evidence of it is almost immediately visible to voters, and they can take corrective action in the next election.

On a larger scale, things become more complicated. Is NAFTA good or bad? If we should change it, how? Experts disagree, not to mention the millions of people affected by this treaty. Nevertheless, at the ballot box voters make uneducated guesses on taxes, trade, immigration, wars, social policies and many other national issues. Theoretically, in an open society the public has access to all the essential information. These days, for a motivated voter, there is unparalleled access to data and analysis on any subject. Yet it is frightening to see how poorly informed most people are.

In democracy the majority rules, and there is an underlying assumption that the majority is right. What if the majority is wrong? The Prohibition proves that this is possible. What if the majority is split? In the U.S., issues like health care, education, or immigration have persisted unresolved for decades. Opinion polls tell us that the majority agrees on some aspects of the issue, but there is a different majority for every aspect. Thus, none of the proposed complex solutions, requiring consensus on all the major aspects of a given issue, can pass the legislature.

What can or should a decent politician do when seeing that the majority is disoriented or, worse yet, leaning toward a bad choice? In an ideal world, an aspiring politician would research the problem, formulate a solution, and then try to persuade the public of its merit. This is the concept of leadership. Unfortunately, it means standing in front of voters and telling them that they ought to change what they do or think. Is this a way to get elected? Obama's chances of getting elected were hurt when he told some Americans that they should not cling to guns and religion; indirectly implying that they should use their brains more.

The rule of the majority is an absolute tyranny. One can question the powers of a dictator or a minority government; but there is no claim or legacy to undermine the voice of the majority. Maybe some ostracized intellectuals can lament that stupidity, even if supported by the majority, is still stupidity only. Old Tocqueville, as usual, said it best "In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them".

As long as the nation's affairs are not in a dire state, the majority will stick to its preconceived notions and will be not receptive to change. Ironically, the word "change" is gracing banners nowadays as Americans see the need for change in Washington. Do Americans see a need for Americans to change?

Americans hold themselves and their nation in high esteem, and they seek confirmation of both from their leaders. As a result, they tend not to seek out real leaders, but prefer politicians who put a finger to the wind and echo populist expectations.

Once in Washington and facing real issues, politicians have to be reasonable, and act otherwise than promised. This only reinforces the voters in obviously erroneous and fruitless thinking that a change is needed in Washington.

America still waits for a leader, who would dare to tell Americans that majority of them are wrong and they need to change. Will it be Barack Obama?

Comments

[ObjectiveRealist]

The relationship to reality suggests a gag such as Borowitz writes, but the tone is strangely earnest.

[
In his presidential campaign, now President Elect, was very careful in talking about change in very generic terms, so every potential voter could see it as some good that would be delivered to him or her on a gold plate
]

"I'm not just asking you to believe in my ability to change Washington, D.C. I'm asking you to believe in yours."

Obama has a far greater ability than Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul to *inspire* people who are not *already* passionate, and well-versed about their policy concerns, but he is no less authentic because of that skill. This reeks to me of the same disappointment fans of Nirvana expressed when the band became "mainstream" and supposedly "sold out." I can understand your concern because I also would prefer either Kucinich or Ron Paul, but the country is not ready for a President with such an eccentric personality.

[
Straight shooters, like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, telling voters bluntly, how it is, had no chance, since voters elect politicians who tell them what they want to hear.
]

There's a lot more to it than that, and when I see Kucinich's and Paul's supporters devolve into this kind of envious sour grapes garbage instead of advocating for their *policy* agenda, well it's Henryk A. Kowalczyk's own authenticity, not Obama's, that this post calls into question for me.

[aofh]

In a country of over 300 million people, myriad issues and interest groups, it is impossible to be the kind of informed citizen democracy requires. That said, a leader has to be persusaive. People are not going to budge from their comfort zones unles they are persuaded to by circumstance or the people they listen to. That we elect inarticulate people to high office doesn't say much for us.

[Ljeff79]

I love Kucinich and Paul! I think that they are the only ones in the House that are actually doing their jobs. Members of the House of Representatives are supposed to be the direct representatives of the people. Its the place in government that the marginal arguments should to be made.

Ultimately I'd like to see the house be at least 1/4 third party. Lets have some Socialists, Greens and true red-blooded Libertarians in there causing trouble!

I want one guy advocating for a 35% flat tax, and to have another guy who wants NO TAX at all. Let them get in a fist fight! Have somebody try to IMPEACH EVERYBODY! That is democracy in action!

The thing is, in this country nobody really wants to see that in a President. The President has to represent everybody. We have seen in the last eight years the what happens when you have an extremest in office.

Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are brilliant people. I was totally mad that Kucinich's very valid and well prepared impeachment argument went down without a second look, I even wrote an angry letter to my representative. I don't agree with Ron Paul, but I respect his guts. Its not easy to stand up to the Republican party as a Republican. He was my hero at the start of the Iraq war.

But the only way I would vote for either of them for president is if I could vote for them both.

[stell]

Interesting points. In life, one generally has to do what they don't want to do to get what they want. Those things require discipline. The country really doesn't have the luxury not to to change, or only partially change. Fundamental change is needed, but people don't want to get out of their comfort zones. Either change willingly, or be forced to change by your circumstances.

[jsarets]

Americans want change in the sense that they want other things/people to change so that they don't have to.

[UncommonSenz]

"Straight shooters, like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, telling voters bluntly, how it is, had no chance, since voters elect politicians who tell them what they want to hear."

Oh please. It is easy to stand up and spout populist talking points that sound, to some, like "straight talk" but are oblivious to the real world.

"Impeach Bush", sounds great. The administration has to be one of the most corrupt that has ever disgraced our country. But bringing articles of impeachment when Bush was going to be gone soon wasn't "refreshing straight talk", it was delusional , ignoring REALITY which is that it would never make it through congress, would paralyze the government under overheated partisanship, and would doom any chance of even marginally improving our current condition. Pointless, counterproductive, and short-sighted... not exactly "blunt".

Similarly, Ron Paul can talk a great game about how we spend so much, and how easy it would be to just lop off all this bad government, and everything would be great. Again, not "blunt", and not straight talk- but easy to sell. If people actually knew what specific sacrifices would come from the draconian types of cuts he proposes, not many of them would be on board.

Right now I define change as a government that hires competent people in important positions, honestly tries to do what is best for the country, and makes itself accountable and responsive to the people. I believe we are now, finally, headed in that direction.

[Rule Of Law]

I disagree.

[UncommonSenz]

Um... care to elaborate on that?

[demockracy]

Thom Friedman writes that a permanent advertisement in Iran proclaims "America: headquarters of global arrogance." The Iranians have a point. Americans have been born on third base, but want to act like they hit a triple.

Let's remember that this country came close to electing Bush 43 twice. Stolen elections or not, it got at least close enough to steal, and McCain won millions of votes. The oligarchs are firmly in charge, and Obama is appointing an economic team full of Clintonites who cheered on the deregulation at the root of current difficulties.

So expanding an economy designed to exploit all resources in the most un-sustainable possible way could be bad. And we can live quite comfortably if we start adopting public policies that promote more sustainable living -- things like sharing... in transportation (instead of subsidizing single-occupant autos) and in medical insurance costs (single-payer healthcare).

...or we can lurch from crisis to crisis, wondering why Uncle Ben hasn't struck it rich in the Alaskan motherlode, or some native population won't give up its resources as easily as the Indians.

I'm afraid it's going to have to get much worse, though, before most arrogant Americans are willing to acknowledge the power of humility. But how can we learn something new if we already know it all?

[drgeorgep]

Another on-the-mark article from Dr. Kowalczyk, which underscores the will of the majority is not the same as what's right or true, for that matter. The majority hates the intelligent and despises the fool. The President-elect presents, publicly, as speaking for the majority, knowing, full well, only minority opinion, such as from his panel of economic advisers, can salvage America from the debacle of the Shrub White House. Bully, for Dr. Kowalczyk: too many are too timid to write the truth, and the majority be darned. An inspiring article for Thanksgiving Dave. Thank you.

[Henryk A. Kowalczyk - Huffpost Blogger]

Thank you for flattering comment.

However, I do not have PhD, therefore Dr. in front of my name is not correct.