|How's dat Hopey-Dopey workin' for ya? (Image via Theo)|
Related source » Hope and ChangeChange not; want not. It means don't change it if it works well. You can quote me on that. As for "hope", there is a proper time and place for it. It belongs at the end of an exhaustive travail that has brought you to the last refuge of true grit; but it also appears magically at the starting blocks as the first refuge of the lazy, the ignorant, the easily charmed, and/or the heavily sedated.
[This related source is recommended in its entirety.]
“We are a democracy, and as such do not generally elect our best people to office. How could we? They weren't running. Those wishing to be elected must appeal, in the shortest time, to the greatest number. They are generally those comfortable with, enamored with, or incapable of understanding the potential harm of questionable generalities, which is to say, of mumbo jumbo.
"Hope" […] means:"Hope for the best, in a process over which you have no control." For, if one had control, if one could endorse a candidate with actual, rational programs, such a candidate demonstrably possessed of character and ability sufficient to offer reasonable chance of carrying these programs out, we might require patience or understanding, but why would we need hope? […]
"Change" what in particular? "Hope" for what? […]
My generation [the baby boomers] has a giddy delight in dissolution. Mark Rudd, a leader of the radical group which occupied Columbia in the student riots [I was there, as a grad student, at that time. TBH], said, on taking over the administration building, "We got a good thing going here. Now we've got to find out what it is." This student radical, on taking the high ground, called for "change," undifferentiated from improvement, or any, specific improvements. […]
To inspire the unsophisticated young to demand "change" is an easy and a cheap trick — it was the tactic of the Communist Internationale in the thirties, another "movement." The young and spoiled, hav[e] not been taught to differentiate between impulses. Frightened of choice, they band together, dress, speak, and act alike, take refuge in the herd, and call it "individualism." But the first principle of a responsible human being — a man or woman who must support him or herself, or their dependents […] is not to alter that which prospers.” [emphasis added]
— David Mamet, The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture, Chapter 34
If you vote for "hope-and-change" (another way of saying, "let's fling it at the wall and see if anything of value sticks"), you will get both, in spades (racism not intended; spades is the highest ranking suit in bridge). And, as an added "bonus", you will rue the day you voted for it (no extra charge, because it's a given).
It is astounding to realize how many millions of Americans were duped into trusting such unadulterated vomit. Even doctors, many of whom smile contentedly when charmed by notions of a "god complex", ignored their Hippocratic oath, which is characterized by the familiar dictum, "First do no harm". Would these people be willing to perform surgery blindfolded so that they could put their complete trust in the deity instead of their own skills? Would their sorry-assed patients?
Whence this monstrous mass hysteria that enables people, who normally get up in the morning, and after tying their own shoe-laces, head out into the cold cruel world to earn a living, to subordinate all they know to be real to the demagoguery of a f*cking charlatan?
If you want to understand whence comes your loathing of the liberal left, read David Mamet's The Secret Knowledge. Be advised that understanding will likely effect more intense loathing.
Post 1,673 Institutionalized Absurdity