In Defense of Change
Destroying Myths in Our Political System
by The Liberator

I really enjoyed the article Defending the Indefensible which upheld our current polarized political system. There were some key words that were used. Some of the words that caught my eye were ‘virtue,’ ‘tradition,’ and ‘bless.’ ‘Stability,’ ‘extremism,’ ‘legitimacy,’ and ‘fringe’ were also very revealing. If I did not personally know Flavius (the author), I would still have a strong, sneaking suspicion of his entrenched political persuasion. Nevertheless, I must disagree with many of the theories that were presented.

My main disagreement is with the notion of unquestionable tradition. I am a self-regarded strategist in the area of American tradition. Tradition, in general, serves humanity by offering comfortable familiarity and predictability to the many who desperately require these things. The downside is that tradition often perpetuates antiquated ideology that mistakenly becomes mainstreamed "truths." I enjoy shattering these traditions when they are in need of evolution. Our political system is desperately in need of evolution.

In order to dispel ancient, outdated tradition, one needs to upset the system. This realignment will initially appear to be an unstable and dangerous force. However, it is a correcting force that is well justified and best left to take its natural course. This bounded chaotic activity is observable everywhere in nature. For instance, a healthy, stable heart is one that beats with a pattern that varies in time. A heart that beats with the regularity of a clock has a higher tendency towards failure. Hence, change is a necessary component of function.

The Framers of the Constitution tried feverishly to protect us against various ills so that our country could function. They feared that the majority would rule despite the ramifications on minorities. Rights of the individuals vs. property owners, and state vs. federal power were discussed. The branches of government and their interlocking systems of checks and balances were also well planned. Nowhere is it noted that there is a danger of having more than two political parties! In fact, I can make a convincing argument for having more than two political parties even though Flavius’ article unfairly compared potential new parties to the Nazi party.

Even though the Nazi party was allowed to negatively mutate the German pre-World War government, let us not close the door on fringe groups and radicals. Yes, fringe groups and radicals need to be defended. Closing the door on radicals would have prevented our nations’ liberation from the British. Our history is rich in extremists, citing Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, and of course, Thomas Jefferson. Their group, the Revolutionists, was a necessary fringe group. The Constitution has checks and balances that prevents the creation of another "Nazi"-type, fringe regime.

I do understand that new opinion and interest in the political system can be a scary fact for many traditionalists. People who invest capital based on assumptions of stability have a lot to lose given that unpredictable change may take place. Are we placing capital investments before people? We should not. Do not forget that our very own Constitution is a work in progress, made to change in time. That is what makes our Constitution, and the United States, so great!

Many traditionalists prefer to inhibit necessary evolutionary changes in order to reap the profits of predictability regardless of the consequences--a strong disadvantage of capitalism. Growth is thwarted by drumming up charges of instability, extremism, and lack of tradition. Actually, what these traditionalists are proposing, is that they demand more of the same! Fortunately, the American people see through this intentional clouding of the issues and are correct when they call for fresh insight to the problems that persist. Look at what more of the same has brought upon us. New blood is required to facilitate new ideas.

Actually, over-simplifying our political system into a polarized two party system is dangerous. The governed find themselves misrepresented. The feeling of misrepresentation or, worse, non-representation makes people angry and take unhealthy routes in order to find a voice. Abandoning representation is a risky and sometimes dangerous undertaking. Examine the numerous calamities our country has faced from internal sources as proof.

There may be two or three readers who still find themselves in agreement with Flavius’ article over this one. They too believe that the universe revolves around a stationary Earth and that the Earth is flat. They might also enforce book banning. Impossible, you say? These things used to be tradition. Thankfully, most of us recognize these ancient traditions to be false. I am still surprised to find many other absurd traditions still in practice today. They will find themselves under attack in future essays. Keep thinking for yourself!

If you would like to see a follow-up to this article, go to Tradition Revisited written by Flavius.

Click here to return to our Articles: