Is Political Change Good? A Historical perspective

Change. What an interesting word, and even a more interesting campaign slogan. Change to what? Does change always mean a change for the better? Obama has made change his entire campaign, his lack of substance may have caught up with him last night. I can not believe I am saying this, but I was happy to see Clinton win last night. For four years everyone knew Clinton would run for president this year, and for four years Republicans have been bracing for the inevitable, and preparing to do anything in our power to stop her. The thought of Hillary as president makes me cringe, but over the past week I have began to feel that of the two Democratic choices she may be the lesser of two evils. I think we have been so focused on the possibility of Hillary winning that we allowed an even greater threat to sneak up on us. Now that Obama has been strongly campaigning in Texas I have been able to listen to him a bit more, including his stop at my campus. His campus stop was all the same, we need change. It was his TV ad that first concerned me. His ad basically said that it is not fair that the rich have money and that the poor do not and that he wants to change that. Democrats have always wanted to level the playing field, but the way Obama talks about it, makes it a distribution of wealth. Now I am not rich, in fact I am on the poor side right now, but anyone who works should see the problem of taking money from the rich because they are rich and giving to those who are not. Leveling the playing field is fine, give the poor a fighting chance is fine, but to punish people because they make money and give it the poor goes against every American principle the founder believed.

I believe Obama constitutes the worst fear of the Founding Fathers, not because of his color (which would have blown their mind), but because of the source of his popularity. When the Founders created our Constitution, there was not a mention of political parties. The Founders hoped to avoid parties, or factions as they called them, and in fact saw the Constitution as the ultimate protection against factions. They Believed the Patriot President was endangered by two things—factionalism and Factionalism’s ugly offspring, the demagogue. Party competition would only lead to un-virtuous men who appeal to popular passion and prejudice. One of the most brilliant political thinkers of his day, Alexander Hamilton, said of the people, , “beset as they are … by the snares of the ambitious, avaricious, the desperate, by the artifices of men who possess their confidence more than they deserve it, and of those who seek to possess rather than to deserve it.” Men who posses their confidence more than they deserve it, there is not better line to sum up the Obama campaign. Our system is supposed to weed out those not qualified to run as president, but with the party system, and the party structure, they can push through a candidate who has little qualifications for president (not yet as least) and has run on a platform of no substance. He is popular because he is popular. I see it every day with my students who love him, but do not know why, but mainly because he is popular, that is the demagogue that spawned from the factions the Founders feared.

So what is the Change that Obama promises. In politics everyone promised change, However, change is not always good. History give two extreme example of men who gained unhealthy power from the masses by promising change. Please do not misunderstand me, I am not comparing Obama to these men, but to the idea of change. In 1917 the Czar abdicated his throne during WW I and was replaced by the democratically elected Duma. The Duma hoped to accomplish what the Czar could not, mainly feed and people, but were just as unsuccessful. They also remained in the war against the Germans. To show they were democratic, the Duma released political prisoners and allowed exiled political trouble makers to return to Russia. One of the men who returned home after exile was Vladimir Lenin. Lenin would go on to form the Bolshevik party and gain popular support from the people. He promised them three things, Land, Peace, and Bread. Basically he told them he would get them out of the war and feed them, worthy causes. As most politicians, he ran on a platform of change, and he carried through with his promise of change, but change was not always for the better.

Similar situation happened in Germany. The German Great Depression was much worse than the American one. Not only was their economy crippled, but so was their pride after losing WW I. The desperate situation made Germany ripe for a man like Hitler. He promised the German people everything they wanted to hear. He would fix the depression, he would make them great again, and he gave them a scape goat for losing the war, so they could keep their pride-the Jews and the Weimar government. His movement became very popular, because he promised the people change. Once again he did deliver when his popularity brought him to power. German did get out of the depression, and they did become a strong nation again, but I am sure no one will argue that his change was good.

Now again, I am not saying Obama is like Hitler or Lenin, but I am saying politicians promising change is not always positive. The kind of things Obama is suggesting are changes, but hopefully Americans can see that is kind of change may not be good for our nation. I do not know what last night meant, but Hillary still has a fighting chance. I am still in disbelief and I might rather have Hillary than Obama. But his entire election is disappointing, know matter who is running for president, we will not have a good choice of president.