Political actions louder than words

I’m interested in the political rhetoric regarding “change”. Obviously, the dire circumstances of our government need to change and as an entity change in government is likely to be realized. On the other hand, the prognosis for change in people is much more bleak because, for the most part, people do not change. To the contrary, studies in human nature suggest that most people avoid change. As such, I’m pondering which of our candidates currently exhibits the behavioral capacity to illicit necessary governmental change? I’m not concerned with names or parties, only my observations as a rapidly-disappearing-middle-class taxpayer -- one of the many who have been shouldering the burden and fighting for survival in a country where current odds seem ridiculously stacked in favor of the elite. To date, I’ve watched a 70-something year old man who is third generation military running for the most significant political office in our land, an office which was once unquestionably the most significant political office in our world. As I watch, this person exhibits the lack of originality necessary to create his own campaign slogan and instead seems focused on the coattail of his opponent’s terminology. He promotes himself as a “maverick” but, based on his ultimate decisions to side with the entrenched; and, his inability to manifest change, he more accurately seems to fit the definition of a heckler. He presents as a man who, despite admirable preservation, is none-the-less 72 years old and exhibits the slowness of thought, lack of flexibility, disconnection with young people, and resistance to change that is entirely commensurate with his age. He admits that he has been actively involved and fully participated in the development of our current, deplorable government situation. And, while he was a heckler in relation to some of the issues that eroded the quality of life for the majority of Americans, he lacked the personal fortitude to vote in opposition to damaging policies and he appears to have lacked the ability to develop an acceptable alternative that might have stopped and/or reduce our country’s downward slide. On the other side, I see his opponent, a 40-something family man whose actions demonstrate an extraordinary compassion for disenfranchised citizens in the way he meets, greets and connects with people. This person historically bucked the system with the courage to vote “present” on congressional bills that were flawed while he continued to seek collaboration for something better rather than to acquiesce on issues that were harmful or in opposition to the beliefs and expectations of his constituents. He excels in the art of negotiation by which he identifies characteristics and values we hold in common to use as a springboard for bi-partisan or global discussion and reform, rather than to try to enforce steadfast ideas through manipulative, dishonest or military action. He presents as focused, precise and resistant to distraction. He is successful in individual management and leadership based on the fact that he has achieved tremendous success in a bigoted society, an accomplishment which in and of itself is positive testimony for his ability to connect with people as people, regardless of their social condition or status. This person fully comprehends the importance of freedom in the US based on the fact that the freedom of the US, as with all of us born to a minority or subjugated class, was not necessarily his birthright but was won through exceptional effort. This person electronically connects with people young and old across all borders of race, religion, education or economic status through a medium that is blind to preconception. In my opinion, actions do speak louder than words and the actions of these two men offer far more understanding of their leadership potential than do their words. The older individual in this scenario would require a complete personal transformation in order to begin to address the issues of change that are urgently necessary in our government because, while his skills are commendable, they do not comprise the skill set necessary to address the issues of this or future generations. Those of us who have a few years behind us know that, for the most part, we grow more rigid with age rather than more flexible. Our thoughts do not come to us as quickly and our creativity begins to lag with the energy required to produce it. It is not realistic to think that someone of advanced years can make the kind of personal changes necessary to even begin to truly comprehend the issues of today’s global society. I don’t believe that anyone, even the very rich and less effected, can deny that we have serious problems in our Capitol that will take many years, generations, to repair. We need a President who has the current, demonstrated ability to bring about change. Not based on rhetoric, but based on the fact that he already lives the necessary change, I will support 40-something.