Beware: Change Is Not Always Something You Should Believe In

Throughout history, generations have theorized that society’s ills can be cured by “change(s)” to society's foundations through government/political intervention. Our current President ran on a simple message of Hope and Change. He claimed that he would provide Change that people could truly believe in. Change is a funny word. One segment of the population views this word as a positive word connoting the casting off of ancient philosophy or thought and adoption of a new, innovative approach. Other members of the population view “change” as a threat to traditional prescriptions that have existed over time that have proven to provide predictable results. When is change a good thing? Is it proper for a man to claim he can bring about change that everyone can believe in?

Before you determine if “change” is beneficial, you must ask yourself if the status quo is in need of change. If the answer to this question is yes, you must consider if the change being advocated by the politician is in fact more beneficial than the status quo. I will concede that certain aspects of our health care, education and energy policies are in need of changes. However, change is in the eye of the beholder. Herein lies the problem with the “change” being preached to Americans by President Obama: He believes the “change” that is needed for our country is a complete reframing of the foundation for which our country operates. President Obama’s policies on cap and trade, socialized medicine, immigration reform, economic regulation and many other domestic and foreign policies exact a radical departure from traditional American policies. Many Americans are listening to President Obama’s utopian rhetoric regarding these policies without asking themselves if the results of these policies would in fact be more beneficial than the status quo. I hear people say that the health care system is broken and that anything would be better than what we have. Is that true? Is that why Canadians and Europeans come to the U.S. for important medical treatment rather than stay and wait for months or years for treatment from their government run hospitals and doctors? I understand that people easily forget that it can appear that “the grass is greener on the other side.” However, simply “hoping” or even “believing” that the grass is greener on the other side doesn’t mean it actually is greener.

The real question I have is whether President Obama’s drastic and sudden “change” he proposes is a change any of us should believe in? When I hear a man stand before me and tell me he has a vision for America that involves radical changes in the framework for which our society operates, I pause with suspicion and concern. History has proven that in almost every regard, beneficial change takes place slowly and through the unconscious actions of many individuals within a society; not at the hand of a single man with good intentions. The great statesman, Edmund Burke, pointed out that proper change comes as a consequence “of a need generally felt, not inspired by fine-spun abstractions. Our part is to patch and polish the old order of things, trying to discern the difference between a profound, slow, natural alteration and some infatuation of the hour.” Burke summarized his point by stating, “by and large, change is a process independent of conscious human endeavor, if it is beneficial change.” Men may use their reason to assist an adjustment of the old order of things to new things “if they are employed in a spirit of reverence, awake to their own fallibility.”

President Obama’s rhetoric regarding his policies paints a utopian picture of free, yet high-quality health care for all; complete energy independence through alternative energy sources while at the same time somehow keeping costs low to consumers; spending trillions on stimulus for infrastructure, education and other social programs with the promise such spending will have no ill effect on our economy and international standing in the future. President Obama’s rhetoric of “change” provides no possibility of the fallibility of his policies and is quick to pass judgment on the status quo without considering if his new policies would be any more effective than the status quo or result in any possible unintended consequences creating greater harm. For example, if President Obama wanted beneficial change for our health care system, he would analyze not only the deficiencies of the American health care system, but also the deficiencies under the socialized medicine programs instituted in Canada and UK (i.e. 4 month to 2 year waiting lists and rationed health care). Unfortunately, Pres. Obama is arrogantly relying upon his reason and vision as a means to fundamentally “change” America. By throwing aside the traditional policies and practices of society and altering the fabric of our American society, President Obama sets upon a dangerous course, as expressed by Burke:

“One of the first and most leading principles on which the commonwealth and its laws are consecrated, is lest the temporary possessors and life renters in it, unmindful of what they have received from their ancestors, or of what is due to their posterity, should act as if they were the entire masters; that they should not think it among their rights to cut off the entail, or commit waste on the inheritance, by destroying at their pleasure the whole original fabric of their society; hazarding to leave those that come after them a ruin instead of a habitation – and teaching these successors as little to respect their contrivances, as they had themselves respected the institutions of their forefathers. By this unprincipled facility of changing the state as often, and as much, and in as many ways, as there are floating fancies or fashions, the whole chain and continuity of the commonwealth would be broken. No one generation could link with another. Men would become little better than the flies of a summer.”

Prudence, patience and a respect for the traditional social, economic and religious framework for which our country was founded and developed should be employed in seeking reform or “change” for the ills of our society. Burke said it best when he described beneficial reform: “the perceptive reformer combines an ability to reform with a disposition to preserve; THE MAN WHO LOVES CHANGE IS WHOLLY DISQUALIFIED, FROM HIS LUST, TO BE THE AGENT OF CHANGE.”

One Nation Under ????

Recently, President Obama made a startling statement to the people of Turkey regarding his perception of the religious beliefs of the U.S: “I've said before that one of the great strengths of the United States is, although as I mentioned we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.” This is a startling statement coming from a U.S. President. Although it is true that our Constitution does not advocate or endorse any specific religion, it has always been very clear that we were a nation founded under God and detailed readings of the Founders reveal that many of the Founding Fathers strongly believed that a faith in God was the backbone that would keep our democratic republic intact. One must ask themselves why Obama would make this statement. Clearly, the only reason is to curry favor with the Muslim world and appease them by making a “feel good” statement that clearly misrepresents the founding of our nation and the present state of religion and belief in God in America.

The more interesting question is what President Obama meant when he stated that “we” (meaning him) consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values. What ideals? What values? Where do we originate and develop these ideals and values and why are they the “right” or “moral” ideals and values? Equally important, do our ideals and values and the inclusion or exclusion of a belief in God matter to the health and survival of our country?

As a general principle, individuals establish their ideals and values from either their faith in God or their own adoption of a moral code based on their reason. The choice to believe in God or to believe in one’s own reason is a profound one because it greatly influences an individual’s perspective and decision making regarding the proper role of government in society.

An individual that adheres to a belief in a moral code based upon their reason believes man is the only true “god” in the universe and adheres to the principle of meliorism (man is capable of perfection and unlimited progress). Such a belief in one’s self springs forth a belief that “education, positive legislation, and alteration of environment can produce men like gods.” This results in the meliorist choosing to deny that man has a natural tendency toward sin or moral degradation. This “aspiring to be perfect” man soon develops contempt for tradition and concludes that formal religion is an archaic burden limiting the advancement of the “perfect man.” The meliorist relies instead upon “reason, impulse, and materialism” as a means to exact policies regarding social welfare. This type of man becomes a man “in love with change.” The meliorist focuses on abstract reason as a means of directing social order and concludes that man’s downfall has been the corruption by traditional institutions and the archaic traditions of mankind that he believes were based upon myth. Such a man seeks “liberation from old creeds, old oaths, old establishments.” “Political power (or the destruction of existing political power) becomes the most efficacious instrument of reform.” Such a man concludes that his purpose in the world is to indulge his appetites and enact his “social reform” in order to create a more perfect human existence.

Individuals that establish their ideals and values based upon a faith in God believe that political problems are essentially religious and moral problems. An individual that believes and exercises a faith in God makes decisions for himself and others with the understanding that he will one day account for his conduct to God, not just his constituency. An individual with a sense of accountability acts in prudence: “If our world indeed is ordered in accordance with a divine idea, we ought to be cautious in our tinkering with the structure of society; for though it may be God’s will that we serve as instruments of alteration, we need first to satisfy our consciences on that point.” This individual believes a universal equality among men exists: equality in the ultimate judgment of God. Additionally, this individual has contempt for the notion of human perfectibility and believes that “poverty, brutality, and misfortune” are the consequences of our depravity and evil heart, not of erring institutions or misplaced legislation. The religious individual believes “pride, ambition, avarice, revenge, lust, sedition, hypocrisy, ungoverned zeal, disorderly appetites – these vices are the actual causes of the storms that trouble life. Religion, morals, laws, prerogatives, privileges, liberties, rights of men are the pretexts for revolution by sentimental humanitarians and mischievous agitators who think that established institutions must be the source of our afflictions.” Burke believed that a man governed by a devotion to God would make decisions based upon tradition, tempered by expedience: “A man should be governed in his necessary decisions by a decent respect for the customs of mankind; and he should apply that custom or principle to his particular circumstances by a cautious expediency.”

Americans have long heard that our country is great because of the principles that our country were founded upon. It is settled history that an overwhelming number of the Founders had a definite belief and practicing Christian faith or closely related faith in God. My argument, derived largely from the writings of Edmund Burke and others, is that the belief in God and one’s decision to conform one’s life in accordance with a belief in God creates an attitude and philosophy of prudence and humility. In contrast, the meliorist or humanist lives a life seeking to fulfill his ambition and passions through his arrogant decision making with the belief that his decisions hold no threat of providential accountability. The meliorist philosophy enables man to view himself as a god and emboldens him to seek more and more power to enact his social order for the “perfection” of mankind.

Burke succinctly summarized the plight of a society with no belief in God: “If we are adrift in chaos, then the fragile egalitarian doctrines and emancipating programs of the revolutionary reformers have no significance; for in a vortex of chaos, only force and appetite signify.”

Do our ideals and values and the inclusion or exclusion of a belief in God matter to the health and survival of our country?