The late William F. Buckley, Jr. once said: “Liberals, it has been said, are generous with other peoples' money, except when it comes to questions of national survival when they prefer to be generous with other people's freedom and security.”
In his speech on Super Tuesday, Senator Barack Obama told his audience “We are the change we seek.” Given his record and his prescriptions for change, Mr. Obama thinks more government is the solution. I have a question for Mr. Obama: If “we” truly are “the change we seek” then why do “we” need government to enact that “change”? Wouldn't real change be relying on individual action? Wouldn't real change be making “we the people” less dependent on an already too large and too incompetent government? I would think Mr. Obama would agree. After all, in the same speech he talked about the personal stories of how he and fellow community leaders in inner city Chicago got together to fix neighborhood problems. That didn’t take government, it took individuals.
Well, to be short, I think it's a direct relationship. The more people put into their government and the more they participate, the more they get from it, to their benifit. It's like now, we have relatively few people participating activly in thier government, even at a relatively simple local level. So, its the few that do participate that influence the governments decisions, and not always in a positive light. These few people are the current change, and it stinks. If more activly participated, the change would be for the better of the community. The laws and regulations set forth by the previous 'change-seekers' were not good, so it takes the people to get together to coerce the government to change the laws and regulations to be to the benifit of the peoples.
