Ok, we’ve just elected someone who defined himself and his candidacy based on change. What is it or really, what should change be?
I’ve heard and read discussion that change is about bringing new approaches to everything. I think these written and spoken conversations define new approaches as something truly new and never been tried.
I think that definition is inadequate. I think this for 2 reasons. First, new approaches that are untried and untested and by those definitions very risky. We want change not failure. Second, the last eight years and to some degree the last 16 (because Clinton exhibited some of these traits too) had an uncooperative legislative and executive branch that not only bordered on hostility but crossed that border often. I think based on that the change we want is something different that these last 8-16 years.
Now, that being said, I do believe that some new approaches that are untried and untested are good additions to a whole and complete approach that includes these new approaches as well as tested and true approaches.
What I’d like to see is a positive and cooperative Washington that looks out for it’s citizens rather than focusing on corporations. What I’d like to see is a Washington that has some strong successes on the issues that are important to the citizens and are not overly compromised on making the results non-useful to it’s citizens.
Change needs to be something that works for our country and it’s citizens.