Vox Newman

Out With the New, In With the Old | May 29, 2012

I was just thinking about reform as it applies to politics and democracy. I’ll point out now that I’m not sure how this thought applies to early modern democracies (i.e. Republics where voting was granted to only those with a certain level of wealth, meaning that suffrage wasn’t universal: it was granted with property ownership).  I make the distinction because I’m not familiar with reform movements prior to universal suffrage.

I suspect that the idea I am about to express may be something unique to the masses having the vote, but this may not be the case and I may just believe that because I perceive the general public as more susceptible to these movements; whether my assumption is correct or not is not really related to my main point, but if one is inclined to, they should go research that notion.

My main point is how I perceive reform movements in my world.  I’m referring mostly to western democracy in the 20th and 21st centuries.  Of course, the bulk of my direct experiences take place in North America.

With all those qualifiers out of the way, I’ll get to the point as I perceive it: generally, most reform movements originate from the right side of the political spectrum.  What we get, in those cases, is a loud politician claiming a special ability to wipe out anything in our bureaucratic systems that are a perceived drag on our society (usually as it relates to the economy).  The solution, as they usually present it, is to make change by removing a policy or system that they object to and either replacing it with nothing or some concept from the past which they claim was better.

Neither of these solutions seem to evoke the spirit of change or reform to me.  One is a leap into a void while the other is a leap backwards.  By calling it change or reform, though, the movement can convince those who aren’t paying attention that they’re getting something new.

---