Change has been a big topic of discussion over the last year and a half with the elections, but what does it really mean? To a lot of individuals change is looked at as something to change their personal lives. If they have a low income, they would want it to change to a higher income. If they have debt, they would like it to change to no debt. And if they have sadness, they would like it to change to happiness. Is it possible for an election or the government to provide this kind of change on a personal level?

It makes sense that the liberal ticket pushed change the most. That is what liberal basically means. They don’t like the way things currently are, so they want to change them. Conservatism on the other hand means that people want to conserve the way things are. The funny thing with the 2008 election is that both candidates wanted change. They wanted to change Washington and that is the one thing that hasn’t changed in the past six months. Congress is just as reckless and partisan as ever. I find that we usually have too much of either extreme represented when it comes to change. There is one group that is afraid of change, trying to stop it from happening; and the other is trying to force it upon us. What about letting change happen naturally? What about analyzing how are current situation is, weighing new options, and making a few smart changes in order to improve the situation.

farmertechA good example of this can be seen by looking at three farmers. The first farmer rejects change, insisting on staying with old technology to plow his fields, and harvest his crops. He uses tried and true methods to produce a consistent yet small crop. The second farmer embraces every new piece of technology or technique. He buys the latest and greatest expensive equipment to help him effectively cultivate and harvest more crops. He usually has a large crop, but he spends all of his earnings trying to pay off the debt from the new technology. The third farmer uses the traditional techniques while embracing new technology when it has proven itself. He purchases new equipment from the second farmer when it has been used for a season. He is not afraid to try new techniques and mix them with the old ways. His crop is a little larger than the first farmer and not as big as the second farmer, but his profits are far greater than the other two farmers combined. He effectively takes whats good from the old and what is good from the new to mix them together and create a more successful crop.

I wish that this middle opinion could be better represented in Washington. I wish that we could look at the old and the new and pick out the best aspects. I wish that we could be open to change without trying to force everyone into it. I wish that we could realize that taking this middle road would be better for everyone.