To Stagnate is to Die

Guest commentary; Tropovich

Stability is a fun concept to ponder. It is completely understandable to desire stability in the sense that it is the opposite of a state of chaos. What is not understandable is why someone would desire stability in the sense that it is to stop outside influences, change.

It dawned on me embarrassingly recently that stability in government takes on both meanings. Politicians and leaders have a vested interest in a populous that is not in a state of chaos or mayhem. It makes themselves, their legacies, and their jobs much easier to perform. Politicians and leaders, on both sides of the aisle I might add, also want a set system through which they may govern. While it is not my intent to direct this towards conservatives in a negative way, it may appear to be so to some.

Conservatism is the desire to maintain a status quo- a set limitation that will stay the same no matter what comes along. It's a perfectly fair ideology. It's human nature to want things to stay the way they were at some earlier period. What I didn't understand until now what that this status quo wasn't just dealing with new issues from the same perspectives or on the same precedents as before, it was to maintain a stationary government- a government that would be unchanging, from now until oblivion. That's a quite profound idea. Is it even possible to create something that deals with multiple groups of people yet continues to be the same that it was before? People, ergo ideas, die off, new ones are born, any number of nature changes may occur that alter the shape of a government.

Perhaps it depends on perspective. If you look at the United States government as a whole, very little has changed in its 200 years of existence. No revolution has occurred that has dramatically changed to shape of our governing body. That piece of parchment in the National Archives is still the basis on which we do everything. However, if you look at individual sections of our government, you may see something very different. The central government has grown more and more powerful, the right to vote has been expanded, the way in which campaigns are financed and run has undergone significant change in the last few years even.

If you have read my first post on this blog site, this next piece of information may seem quite confusing, but I promise to clarify. Conservatives can win. In the sense that they have a clearly defined goal for how American politics should be handles, conservatives can win. They can pass bills, write amendments, and rule cases that creates a government that stands the test of time. This government could very well hold true to its originating doctrine. This cannot be done by Liberals who accept consistent change. As fellow blogger analogized, government is like a water-wheel to liberals. As time goes on, there's something new at the top of the wheel. Conservatives want a level plane or some sort of square. So to clarify my statements here with my earlier ones, conservatives can win, but this is only because they have a set goal. They will not win because it is not human nature to stay in one place. At any given time, one person will always be happier or more comfortable than another. Trying to maintain society at any given point, the lower peoples will distress, even violently if they must.

The point of this article was to understand the difference between stability for protection and stability for stagnation. A people must always be willing to move forward, accept the ideas of others, incorporate them into society, and move forward again. This is how a government, a society, even an individual can only dream to remain relevant tomorrow.