Changing the World

---

"You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out."

John Lennon and Paul McCartney

---

Bob Herbert writes, in the New York Times, in his typically disarming way, about changing the world.

As I have said before, I think Herbert is a fine writer. And I sympathize when he writes that "Americans have tended to watch with a remarkable (I think frightening) degree of passivity as crises of all sorts have gripped the country and sent millions of lives into tailspins."

Perhaps it says something about me that I am surprised that Herbert is surprised. But I am. Herbert does seem to understand better than most what is happening, but he also seems to lament the fact that most people do not follow Gandhi's appeal to "be the change you want to see in the world."

Maybe running a campaign extolling both "hope" and "change" wasn't a good idea. Maybe Obama was urging people to do two things that cannot be done simultaneously. One may hope for something good to happen, or one may take things into his/her own hands and actively seek a change. Can one do both at the same time — and, because of the expectations Americans place on their elected leaders, not cause pain?

The people of whom Herbert writes — the three civil rights workers who were murdered in Mississippi in 1964, Rosa Parks, Betty Friedan — were proactive. But, while they lived in periods of social change that were probably greater than the one we live in now, there were still many who never got involved, who watched from a distance.

It can be argued, of course, that the changes that are the legacies of those pioneers took a long time to become realities. That is true. But, in a way, it seems to be understood that some changes are achieved gradually.

When the "deal," so to speak, is struck with a politician, the expectation is different. It's worth considering, since we're approaching the anniversary of Obama's historic election as president.

And USA Today is doing precisely that. Susan Page writes that views of Obama have changed in the year since his election. The numbers don't appear, on the surface, to be serious — yet — but they suggest that they could be by the time the 2010 midterm elections roll around — if real improvement isn't seen in some areas.

For example, a USA Today/Gallup poll finds that, whereas 84% of Americans were not happy with the way things were going a year ago, 72% are not happy today. Looking ahead three or four years, 65% of Americans thought things would be better when asked about the future last November. Fifty–eight percent feel that way today.

Lawrence Jacobs, director of the University of Minnesota's Center for the Study of Politics and Governance, told USA Today, "There's a kind of realism that's taken over, that 'the change you can believe in' — people have woken up and seen that as kind of a talking point, and I think there's some disappointment, some deflation. On the other hand, when you take into account he's been president during the sharpest economic decline since the Great Depression, it's astounding that his support is not weaker."

You say you want a revolution?