Americans don't want change

Ok I got it! The presidential campaign is coming down to change or at least that’s what both candidates are telling us. Change we can believe in vs. Change from the maverick.

And to be honest with you, both candidates have appealing points of view about their brand of change.

But is change the desired outcome of this election?

Most people will answer that question from their respective partisan views. I can respect that but personally I think change is a little overrated.

Change is a direction but not a destination. As I talk to more people about this election, I hear them talking about change, but their desired end centers on another word that hasn’t been used in this
election — stability.

People want a stable economy, they want to feel stable and safe as far as national security and they want stability in how Washington handles its affairs.

Politicians tend to use the word change because it stirs up emotions of some type. Usually that emotion is anger or distrust. And like with most emotions, we as voters often change ours over a short
period of time.

For example, in 2004, voters across the nation put Democrats in control of Congress. At the time, that was the change the people said they wanted. Even in this year’s congressional elections some
analysts think the Democratic Party will gain even more seats. Consequently most people would think the change in 2004 is still the change people want. So what does it say about that change when
public approval for Congress is hovering around ten percent? That means around 90 percent of the people don’t like the change they voted for.

In 2000, the public elected President Bush by a narrow margin but then re-elected him by a somewhat larger margin in 2004. However, now his approval rating is somewhere around 30 percent. So what
does that say about the change in direction so many Americans asked for in 2000 and wanted to continue in 2004?

Again, some of you will answer these questions through partisan viewpoints. But let’s do a little soul searching here.

We often desire change in the government but not within ourselves.

In a Democracy, and more importantly a Republic, such as ours, the government can only be as good as the people who elect it and what the people truthfully expect from it.

Truthful expectations will give us the stability we truly seek.

Often we elect people more on personality and rhetoric than the realities of our needs. Then, when the personalities and rhetoric no longer reflect the realities of the nation’s status, we want change.

We do this with issues that are brought up every election as well.

Take health care for instance.

Every year, candidates get elected on what they say they will do about health care. Never mind the affordability factor. Medicare is speeding towards going broke because of a variety of factors all leading
back to the cost of the program. We may all want change in the program but the reality is what version of change will make the program stable enough to last 20 more years?

That is the million or should I say several billion dollars question both candidates should be hearing from you and I.

The same concept of change vs. stability applies to just about every other issue to be discussed between now and election day.

So yes, change is good, but only when it leads in the direction of stability, which is based on truthful expectations from us.

Who is the candidate that will lead towards the destination of stability rather than just a direction of change? Neither of the two candidates running for president nor any of the candidates for Congress will
answer that question unless we ask it.

Davon Gray works in Washington, D.C., and resides in Woodbridge. Contact him at dgpointofview@comcast.net.