Change: What Type Lasts? What Doesn’t?

There is a conviction on the left that conservative are opposed to change. But that is a comforting liberal myth. To be sure, conservatives do believe that change as such is not necessarily “good.” It is merely an alteration of things or conditions as they were. In that sense, changes in governmental policy or social mores may be good or bad, wise or foolish. It depends.

For example, 20^th century Communist governments brought massive changes to societies upon which they were imposed. But Communist theory (“from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”) is contrary to human nature and could be sustained only by massive coercion. That change, obviously, was bad.

President Woodrow Wilson, 90 years ago, sought to make the world safe for democracy. In the 1960s, most European nations gave up their African colonies, supposedly leaving behind newly-formed democracies. And in the last decade, President Bush sought to birth a dawning of self-government in the Middle East.

The first two efforts were colossal failures. Europe saw the rise of fascism and Nazism. Africa saw, usually, “one man, one vote, one-time” (those elected considered that they had received a life-time appointment).

The final result on America’s efforts to bring liberal democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan are not in yet, of course. But signs of longevity are not abundant.

In retrospect those failed – or failing - efforts at political change seem more foolish than bad.

But good intentions cannot excuse an unwillingness to accept human nature.

As humans we prefer the known. We have adjusted to it. The consequences of change are not fully known and, thus, are unsettling. Traditions and old ways are comforting for that reason. There is security in acting in conformity with the way things are.

Of course, change can be for the best. But those pursuing it must recognize that resistance is truly natural.  To overcome such reluctance requires that people recognize the value of the change.  Culture is the key.

Take self-government. It is certainly an essential fabric of Western Society. This was, of course, not always the case. Remember that for much of the last thousand years, the “divine right of kings,” reinforced by the religious hierarchy, was the operative political philosophy. The change to liberal democracy evolved over the centuries. The culture changed.

Do the African and Arab worlds have the same history? No.

Is it foolish to expect values of self-government and respect for individual rights to be warmly received in those parts of the world? Yes.

Politicians ignore human nature at their - and our - peril.