Change we can't believe in: Forcing unity on the rest of us

November 1, 2009 12:36 am

Obama and Steven Chu have blasted the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

ISCARED OFF an eagle last week. He was perched on the massive power-line tower down the road when I emerged from the woods to throw the ball in the field for our springer spaniel, Katie. The great bird screamed in protest at the intrusion, lifted off on his massive wings, and glided across the cow pasture to the next tower, safely distant from the Human and the black-and-white Terror.

I watched in awe the eagle's graceful flight, part of the majestic panorama spread before me: green rolling hills dotted with black Angus, the trees glorious at their peak color, the cornflower-blue sky swept by horsetail clouds. For 25 years it has been thus.

We moved to Fauquier County in 1984 because it was committed to remaining rural. And so it has, pretty much avoiding the cookie-cutter housing developments, the traffic, and the costs of growth the others localities have fallen into.

I cannot for the life of me understand why some people think change is always positive. About a decade ago I sat in a training class listening to an outside consultant classify people by their receptivity to change. I was definitely a "slow adapter." He had special techniques to "convert" folks like me. When I asked the question, "Who says change is always good?" you would have thought I'd just suggested that the president wore ladies' underwear (not that there's anything wrong with that these days).

I admit it--not all change is bad. I like the change of seasons. New menus, fresh faces, even unexplored terrain--all positive. And when I'm flying, I'd like the pilot to change course if he notices we're going to miss the airport.

Navigators care about two things: what the destination is and where we are in relation to it. They use an external reference point (like the North Star or GPS satellite) to stay on course. Likewise conservatives use the Constitution (and Christian conservatives the Bible) to judge whether behaviors, policies, ideas, and moral values are on target.

But liberals (excuse me: "progressives") reject those authorities, or at least dilute them. Instead they seem to be reaching for a self-defined Utopia, a "fair" society, where wealth is distributed more evenly, discrimination is nonexistent, and personal liberty (in politically correct areas like sex--but not, for example, in smoking) is assured. Unity is the goal, platitudes their doctrinal statements, and feel-good liberal consensus their guiding light.

Because the current hope-and-change crowd's ideals are not self-evident truths to the rest of us, they're turning to the power of government to impose the unity on which they insist.

SOME 'PHILOSOPHY'

Enter Anita Dunn. She's the latest in a long list of Obama appointees to raise conservatives' blood pressure. In June, she gave a speech to a high school graduating class and listed Mao Zedong as one of her two favorite philosophers--as if repression and mass murder were a "philosophy."

As White House communications director, Dunn has been attacking Fox News as "opinion journalism masquerading as news." When asked what specific Fox News story the White House deemed unfair, presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs said to just watch the 5 o'clock hour. That's when Glenn Beck is on an opinion journalist masquerading as, well, an opinion journalist. (I use the term "journalist" loosely.)

Dunn's hero, Mao, came to power by killing people who opposed him--50 million in all, historians say. I suppose we should be happy that, so far, all the White House has resorted to is name-calling.

For the White House to pick a fight with a news organization is almost as ridiculous as its attack on the Chamber of Commerce. Recently, the president, his energy secretary, and others have blasted the chamber as an organization out of touch with its own members and the administration on climate change and consumer protection. Apparently, questioning the Gospel of Global Warming (and Al Gore's Apocalypse) is grounds for harassment from the highest levels of government. (And these are the people worried about the "religious right" imposing its values?)

Likewise, the industry group America's Health Insurance Plans has fallen under the White House guns. It has withdrawn its support for health care reform after Democrats reneged on a provision that would have kept plans profitable. I guess they expect Aetna and Anthem, et al., to become charities in the New Utopia.

True confession: I order the same thing every time I go to Carlos O'Kelly's. It drives my grown kids crazy. I tend to take the same roads to work every day. I even get in the same lanes. Which is to say, I recognize this "slow adapter" can easily get in a rut. I need to be pushed once in a while to try something new.

I value political liberals for challenging my thinking and forcing me to check my opinions. Nobody gets it all right.

America is strong in part because of robust political debate. And that's why I believe the groupthink the White House is seeking to impose is so dangerous. Not just stupid, or silly, but dangerous--especially with Mao-admirers in charge.

One more thing, by the way: Real hope and change come from God, not government. Getting the two mixed up is a disaster.

Linda J. White is assistant editorial-page editor of The Free Lance-Star.