Lessons Learned: Beware of Arbitrary, Undefined “Change”

| Comments (0)

To all who were lured into the touchy-feely belief two years ago or so that change for change’s sake is a goal to which we all should aspire, I would imagine, and hope, most of you are having second thoughts by now.

Those not so easily swayed know now, just as they (we) knew then, that in its most simplistic terms, change can be good, and change can be bad. To sign on haphazardly to arbitrary, undefined “change,” is to enter dangerous territory for yourself, your family, and, as we have witnessed firsthand, your country.

A quick look at history is all we need to see where that dangerous territory can lead. Hitler wanted “change.” Remember? And he made it happen.  Mao, Castro and Lenin wanted “change.”  And they made it happen.  Indeed just about every tyrant and dictator in human history has wanted change – sometimes defined for the masses, sometimes not – and with long-term, often damning consequences. On the flip side, our nation’s founders wanted change, too — clearly defined, clearly documented change — and they made it happen. Tyrants and dictators of the world (including those within our own nation’s capitol) no doubt view the success of the American experiment “dangerous,” and indeed it is for those who hunger for unbridled power and control of we the people.

And today the mainstream lapdog media, the United States president, and various pundits with undefined qualifications but clearly defined agendas, are singing the praises of change in Egypt after several weeks of undefined Egyptians demonstrating and causing mass destruction in the streets of Cairo. I won’t pretend to understand precisely what is going on in Egypt, but we all know that the Egyptian president Mubarak has stepped down, it appears the military has stepped in (the word “coup” being somewhat avoided), and the Egyptian parliament is being dissolved.  Our president, in turn, using these events to court college students in his bid for reelection in 2012, is congratulating those who have made these dreams a reality, insisting that such undefined, revolutionary “change” is what the slobbering college students are all about.

Because I am no expert, I will look to Israel, rather than the current U.S. president, for clues as to the true significance of the events in Egypt. Said U.S. president has not been what we might call supportive of Israel, so I will assume that his support for the undefined change in Egypt does not necessarily bode well for the Jewish State. Israel, in turn, has hardly been rejoicing over the events in a nation that has been the closest they have to an ally in their shared and very volatile region of the world. I also personally don’t find comforting the words “Sharia Law” and “Muslim Brotherhood” as potential consequences of the Egyptian rebellion.

Meanwhile, our president stands smiling before those cheering, maybe hungover, college students, taking credit for that rebellion, which has thus far resulted in a military coup, the loss of a parliament, and the opening of floodgates to other nations in the region who seek to destroy Israel.  But fear not, America, one of this administration’s top security officials is out there smoothing the feathers of skeptical Americans by insisting that the Muslim Brotherhood, mild and moderate “secular” organization that it is, is nothing to fear.

Sorry, this skeptical American intends to remain so.  In an era of undefined, arbitrary change, only a fool signs on without thought of consequence. Whether we’re talking light bulbs, portion control at restaurants, tin-can death-trappy “smart” cars, or national security and stability, the consequence of change for the sake of change, arbitrary and undefined, can be, and usually is, tyranny.