Crisis and Change

Lately it has occurred to me, whenever I hear mention of it, that the economic crisis which is happening is a necessary force of change.

The Wilson & Dilulio American Government text (Wilson, James Q., and John J. Dilulio, Jr. American Government, 10th Ed. 2006. Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston.) says "American elections, unless accompanied by a national crisis such as a war or a depression, rarely produce changes of the magnitude of those that occurred in Britain in 1945." An economic downturn with the highest unemployment rates since the depression of the 1930s qualifies, I think, as a "national crisis." 

So here is what I think: The depression is supposed to provide inspiration and pressure for great changes in our political system. I have always believed that even if ALL things did not happen for specific purposes, at least some things happen for specific purposes. My first sort of conclusion in this respect is that the economic downturn was destined to happen for at least these two reasons: (1) as a force that pushed the greatest majority of the U.S. population to elect Barack Obama as president (which in turn has given the people hope for the future); and, (2) as a force that will push the many cogs in our political system to put in place the new policies that are needed.

I admit two faults in my theory: the primary action required to make changes is reliant upon the many incumbents in Congress, some of whom are responsible for the same bad policies for which we are currently suffering; and, my theory requires hope that it be done so.

Abbie Hoffman probably would have agreed since he wrote (in Soon to be a Major Motion Picture) that "There are lots of secret rules by which power maintains itself. Only when you challenge it, force the crisis, do you discover the true nature of society. And only at the time it chooses to teach you." He was writing more about political activism done by an individual or group of individuals, but it could very well apply to that about which I write now.