The Rhetoric of Change

Every presidential election season—I mean, every one—is about change. Frankly, I am so tired of hearing the calls for “change,” especially when it goes undefined.
The theme for both democrats and republicans is this notion of “change.” But what does this “change” mean? What kinds of change are they talking about? What kinds of change are the voters clamoring for?
It is scary when we demand change, but don’t even know what kinds of change we are talking about.
This idea of “change” can be as damaging to our country as it is helpful, depending on what kind of change we want and of which is spoken.
For instance, when Barack Obama says that “the ways of Washington must change,” what is he really talking about? What are the “ways” he refers to, and what kind of change does he advocate? Well, he may be talking about regulating lobbyists, political action committees, and special interest groups in general from influencing lawmakers. Sounds good on the surface, right? I mean, after all, there are a lot of corrupt interest groups who selfishly pursue their own agendas in Washington, D.C. That’s common knowledge, and it frosts us to no end.
But what such regulation really amounts to is the suppression of free speech, which is the people’s right to speak and be heard by their government. It is about Congress not passing laws that abridge our freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances, which, by the way, is a clause in Article I of the Constitution.
What this means is that lobbies like the National Rifle Association could be prevented from being heard in the halls of Congress. The NRA, which is the foremost advocate of Second Amendment rights in the country, could be silenced. And if we don’t have a group like the NRA standing up for us in Washington, D.C., reminding our lawmakers of the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, then what is to stop the government from making changes to the Constitution altogether?
What I am talking about is censorship. As much as I do not like many of the special interest groups and lobbyists prowling around my representative’s office, they have that right by virtue of the U.S. Constitution. Their form of “speech” is money, and we may not like that. But the fact is that people like you and me give money to these groups to advocate for them. They are a voice for people seeking a redress of grievances. Without lobbyists, Congress could essentially ignore the many different grievances people have.
Well, isn’t that what our elected representatives are for, to advocate on our behalf? Yes, in theory. But as large and complex as the federal government has become—a gargantuan public corporation, of sorts—budget matters, bills and committees seem to take up a great deal of legislators’ time. If we let them alone, then they would be more than happy not to legislate, but to rule.
Two examples of where our voices were heard through lobbies: Illegal immigration and the Fairness Doctrine.
If it hadn’t been for lobbyists and interest groups opposing illegal immigration, then the infamous Amnesty Bill of 2007 would have become law, granting legal status to millions of people who are living in our country illegally. Wait a minute, you say: Didn’t the amnesty bill get voted down because legislators were flooded with calls from their constituents? Yes, absolutely. But who alerted the people to the dangers of this bill and inspired millions of us to jam the Congressional phone lines? Lobbyists and interest groups, including conservative talk radio, internet bloggers and more.
Talk radio and conservative think-tanks helped to shoot down the proposed Fairness Doctrine before it could be presented before Congress as a bill.
So, you see, lobbyists and interest groups have their place, even if we don’t like them.
But I digress: Some change can be good for the country, such as a change in our foreign trade and fiscal spending policies. I’d like to see the government tax less, spend less and trade less with China and other countries that have us by the tail.
I’d like to see fewer jobs outsourced overseas, where something can be made for a fraction of the cost because labor is cheaper and more plentiful. Unfortunately, this will require the federal government to stop and roll back regulations on business and industry. American companies have been overburdened with taxes and regulations to such a degree that outsourcing has become necessary as a matter of survival. How can we expect Ford, General Electric or even McDonald’s to continue giving us the products we want and can still afford without the ability to make a profit? If government is allowed to take away company profits, then more and more businesses will be here today and gone tomorrow. Companies are being suffocated by myriad regulations—labor, environmental, legal, economic, and social, to name a few—so much so that the difference between profit and cost margins have shrunk to near hairline levels.
In the past two decades, corporate mergers have become commonplace even among large companies. Why? Because many corporations today are unable to stay afloat on their own. So, in order to stay alive and keep people employed, companies large and small have consolidated their assets with others.
My father worked 37 years for a major oil company. He survived more than a half-dozen corporate mergers and buyouts through the 1980s and 1990s before opting for retirement at the point of the old company axe. He griped all the time about the overregulation of the oil industry and how such government interference was going to bring an end to competition in the marketplace.
Is it any wonder why gasoline prices are the way they are these days? How many American oil companies are left in the marketplace? You can count the large ones on one hand. In my dad’s day, there was competition aplenty. Coincidentally, prices remained around or under $1.00 per gallon. But once the mergers began, we saw prices rise to above $1, $2 and now over $3 per gallon.
Excessive environmental regulations have also contributed to the increased price of gas at the pump. Oil companies are not allowed to build additional refineries because of environmental regulations. In fact, there hasn’t been a new oil refinery built in a generation or so, in spite of the burden of increased demand over the years. So, what we have here is a fundamental problem of supply and demand. Except that the government stands in the way of the marketplace doing its job to correct the problem.
Furthermore, environmental laws prevent oil companies from exploration and drilling on our own property. Laws have forced us to import the vast majority of our oil, which happens to come from political enemies in the Middle East and South America. We are doing business with a bunch of racketeers who have us by the gonads.
Moreover, taxes on gasoline at all levels of governments continue to increase.
Do you still wonder why gasoline has gotten so expensive?
Again, I digress: When a politician uses the term “change,” I have to wonder exactly what kind of change s/he is talking about. I have to ask what the consequences are of such change. Can we really afford this “change” that many of our politicians are tossing around like a beach ball?
Before you start to join in the chorus for change, think about it.
There’s an old saying: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” And if it is broke, be sure you know what you are doing before you try to fix it.