Will there be change, Part 2

Stephen D. Krasner - the political scientist, the Stanford Professor, the former Director of Policy Planning at US DoS – is apparently the only polysci author who actually has a strong sense of humor. While writing “Are Bureaucracies Important?”, which was a direct response to Graham T. Allison's “Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis”, Krasner decided to add a nifty little subtitle. “Allison Wonderland” is a clever little play on words that goes to show that at least one polysci writer has a sense of humor.

Anyways, moving onto the real topic for today...

In this essay, Krasner asks a very interesting question, one that I will attempt to answer in a very basic and non-complex manner:
“What sense to vote a man out of office when his successor, regardless of his values, will be trapped in the same web of only incrementally mutable standard operating procedures?”



Personally, I find very little stock in this actual idea. We can already see the vast policy differences between Obama and Bush, and they have only switched office for a day or so. We can see that Obama is actively attempting to remove the 'harmful' foreign policy decisions that Bush instated, and we can see that there is already a fight brewing over this. There is a clear and obvious change with every president, not just in staff, but in attitude. Looking at various ones, we can argue that it is more there attitude then position that causes the changes.

But is the Obama/Bush switch really a good candidate to analyze this?
As with all data, there will be outliers. From Lincoln to FDR to Obama, there have been only a few presidents that drastically changed the status quo. I believe that this is not what Krasner was looking at; it seems as though he was actually looking at most of our leaders, the ones who do not attack the standard. With that in mind, we can toss out the above mentioned changes...

So, instead we must focus on the small changes, but mainly on those that switched parties, as that is the best way to analyze what Krasner contended.

Was there a drastic change between Bush and Clinton? No, as Bush himself changed the Reagan policies to be more liberal. The dramatic change did not happen, it was slow and in the middle of one admin.. Yet, somehow we vote Bush out based solely on the idea that Clinton would change things up.

What about between Clinton and Bush take two? Not really, it wasn't until a drastic act changed the world that the real change became clear. As far as I know (based on Wag the Dog) Clinton would have acted roughly the same as Bush. Yet, somehow, we considered the election of Bush to be a mandate and bringer of change. The change that Bush brought to the equation came quite slowly, as it didn't foment until late 2002-early 2003.

As one of the Gaia regulars, PockyBot, would say, the NWO/the Elite actually control the politicians already (see my disclaimer at the bottom of the 9/11 post). As much as I disagree with this statement, I think that it has some bearings of truth. The elite do, in a way, control our leaders as they are the main path to the ears. They are the top brass, they are the top diplomats, they are the top thinkers. They are not in some large conspiracy, nor doing this out of their own interests, but they are controlling it simply to keep the status quo.

The status quo needs to be preserved. It keeps the country running smoothly and makes sure that everything is tested long before it is implemented. This sort of system keeps us alive, and it keeps our country alive. That said, however, how can there be change if the elite, AND THE COUNTRY, want to keep the status quo?

The answer, quite frankly, is that they can't

But what if they have a different philosophy?
This is actually the most important challenge to this position. Philosophies matter, a ton, but are they actually important? We elect based simply on the philosophy part, because we have already seen that the change doesn't happen. Sure, Obama is going in all ready to change how everything is done. So did Congress in 2006, and guess what, nothing changed. The philosophical differences are important, but they do not seem to change how the overall system works.


So, I have to agree with Krasner, it seems as though the overall policy of each politician will in the end be no different then that of the previous one. Too many outside factors impact each and every leader. Sure, Obama is going in with high hopes and plans on changing the World. The question is, will the World let him change it?




What do you guys all think? Read more ...