We All Want ‘Change’

by

Recent Articles

Rusher at 100: Realism for the 21st Century

(June 23, 2023—revised December 21, 2023) William Rusher, a dynamic force on the American right who passed away in 2011 after decades as comrade and mentor to many conservatives, was born a full century ago on July 19, 1923. His centenary comes at a hard time for...

Book Presentation: “If Not Us, Who?” by David B. Frisk

Click to watch the presentation of "If Not Us, Who?" by David Frisk to the Heritage Foundation in Washington DC on C-SPAN. David Frisk's book, If Not Us, Who?: William Rusher, 'National Review,' and the Conservative Movement, offers a comprehensive exploration of the...

Bill’s Biography

William Rusher was an influential political strategist, commentator, and debater at the heart of the conservative movement in the second half of the twentieth century, a movement whose ascent he documented in his 1984 book The Rise of the Right -- one of many examples...

More Resources

“If Not Us, Who?”

If Not Us, Who? takes you on a journey into the life of William Rusher, a key player in shaping the modern conservative movement. Known for his long stint as the publisher of National Review, Rusher wasn't just a publisher—he was a crucial strategist and thinker in...

The deep thinkers have now done their work, and are back with the result: What American voters want, in this year of our Lord 2008, is “change.”

Now, why didn’t you and I think of that? Every politician worthy of the name knows that “change” is the one dependably desirable thing in the political universe. It demands the eradication of everything in the status quo that is undesirable, and its replacement with something better. (A moment’s thought would suggest that change might also result in the eradication of aspects of the status quo that are desirable, but somehow that never occurs to us.)

So politicians are perfectly safe in demanding “change,” and they are forever doing it. As far as possible, they demand it without specifying exactly which changes they are for. That, they prefer to leave to you. What annoys you? Your noisy neighbors? Your spouse? Your unduly demanding boss? The crooks in City Hall? The greedy corporations? The rapacious unions? The Red Chinese? An adept politician can manage to suggest that he shares all of these exasperations with you, and may even be able to ameliorate one or two of them.

The trouble, of course, is that change always entails consequences — and not only the consequences we intended, but usually others that we never anticipated. This result is so common that it has a natural law named after it: the Law of Unintended Consequences. So, if fortunate, we learn early in life to be on the lookout for these disagreeable little surprises, and to avoid them where we can.

But this year, we are told, the voters are particularly hungry for change, and the politicians are eager to provide it. Very well, then — what changes shall we provide? Higher taxes, to provide revenues for the benefit of the nation? There is very little demand for that. Lower taxes, then, to allow us to keep more of what we earn? Only at the price of services — police protection, fire control, medical care — that we cannot sensibly forego. It soon becomes clear that every society is a carefully constructed combination of contributions to a common goal. We can tinker with the contributions at the edges, but there are sharp limits to what we can force people to contribute, and perhaps even sharper ones to the goals we can persuade them to forego.

So the undifferentiated demand for “change,” as a political slogan, is simply a fraud — and a dangerous fraud at that. It asks the voter to identify what annoys him most, and then to assume that eradicating that is what the politician has in mind.

Back in 1946, the national Republican Party, emerging from 14 years of the New Deal, ran on the national slogan, “Had enough? Vote Republican!” It was an inspired example of the sort of the technique described above. Whatever the voter had “had enough” of — whatever was annoying him — could be attacked and countered (the slogan suggested) by voting Republican. And the evidence is that it worked, because the voters promptly sent to Washington the first Republican Congress in 16 years.

Of course, calls for change can just as easily be desirable as pernicious — as the Republicans in 1946 undoubtedly thought theirs was. But it will behoove us to consider carefully what sort of change is being asked for. “Change” is not, simply and everywhere, desirable. In political affairs particularly, a given change can be desirable in certain respects but thoroughly undesirable in others.

Let us beware, therefore, the political analyst who tells us, to all appearances approvingly, that what the public wants this year is “change.” Maybe so; or perhaps different sections of the public want directly contradictory kinds of change. There is more here than meets the eye.

*****

This article originally appeared on Townhall.com on Feb 28, 2008

Author

  • William Rusher

    William A. Rusher, a Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute, was the publisher of National Review magazine from 1957 to 1988. A prominent conservative spokesman, Rusher gained national recognition over forty years as a television and radio personality. Since 1973, his syndicated column "The Conservative Advocate" has appeared in newspapers across the U.S. He is also a prolific author and lecturer, with five books and numerous articles. His notable works include "The Making of the New Majority Party" and "The Rise of the Right." An influential political activist, Rusher was instrumental in the 1961 draft of Barry Goldwater for the 1964 Republican nomination, which reshaped the Republican Party and continued under Ronald Reagan. He graduated from Princeton University and Harvard Law School, served in the Air Force during World War II, and worked at a major Wall Street law firm. He also served as associate counsel to the U.S. Senate's Internal Security Subcommittee before joining National Review. In 1989, Rusher became a Distinguished Fellow at the Claremont Institute, continuing to write and advise from his home in San Francisco. He remains active on various boards, including the Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs, National Review Inc., and the Media Research Center.

    View all posts