As the year progresses, the days get shorter and the temperature begins to drop. Some people describe it as wonderful — they claim to enjoy the seasons. I, however, do not. I, by nature, resist change, but sometimes even my whims must be subdued for the greater good.
These days we all seem to be caught up in such an elusive concept of the necessity of change. “Yes we can” has shifted from a slogan to mantra; people who barely exercise are now hell-bent on marching in protest. Protest what? At this point, it hardly matters, but does it really serve the greater good as it purports? That is to say, does change in general entail an improvement in the human condition. Of course, it is incorrect to say change necessitates anything more than change; it is optimistic, if not foolish to expect much else.
That’s the primary ideological conflict of our time: change versus the status quo. This conflict has become mired in its own self-righteous intent, failing to form any sensible kind of dialectic synthesis. Furthermore, as long thought is striated on class boundaries, it seems unlikely any kind of significant, lasting agreement will be made. It would tragic if it was not intentional — we have chosen to bury ourselves through our own vanity.
It’s rather simple. Differences over various types of policy have risen frequently through the course of history — both in remote past as well as in significantly more recent times. Normally, there is a discussion, congressional debates and the ilk, but now being in opposition has become synonymous with being unethical, immoral or unintelligent. These ad hominem arguments are what make any discourse difficult, if not impossible.
I would not argue for homogeneity. People should maintain their political and corporate affiliations; they serve a purpose in their own right. Those who live in rural counties and urban centers will have opposing views. It’s natural. Furthermore, differences in thought generate new ideas through the aforementioned ideological conflict. Homogeneity, in other words, would decimate the rise of modern thought. An outcome that would be best avoided, though in the current social atmosphere, it might be postulated as a positive outcome. That’s the crux of the problem: Differences are now sought out and eliminated instead of being accepted.
This leaves the question as to how this synthesis can be accomplished. As of now, the current two-party system defies any form of acceptance. It is more efficacious to remove the theorized enemy than compromise. Admittedly, compromise at times is necessary, but rarely is it seriously desired. Both John McCain and Barack Obama talked about their ability to reach across the aisle, but this is more a statement of pragmatism than any interest in adaptation. Now that Democrats have assumed a non-negligible majority in Congress, what little hopes for an understanding have been dashed. Liberals have hailed this as an important breakthrough, while conservatives have lamented what they see as a threat to their ideals.
This is pure madness. It is unreasonable to assume your viewpoint will survive. In fact, it is dangerous even to believe it should. Beliefs are not fixed intangible entities, they are meant to change, evolve and eventually adapt to the present reality. No matter the social inertia, things will change, hopefully for the better.
Thomas Shattuck is a sophomore in the School of Engineering. He can be reached at thomas.w.shattuck@vanderbilt.edu.
