Who defines what is ‘change’ and what is ‘reactionary’?
The first problem is that the ‘change’ metric is that this term is extremely subjective in form. Parenthetically speaking, it is extremely difficult to measure something by that which has no objective qualities. A yardstick has specifically defined quantities such that it can be used to determine and compare dimensional data. ‘Change’ is undefined for this purpose and is entirely useless for the purpose advocated by some.
The Left tends to define ‘change’ as coinciding with the precepts of their socialist national agenda. Whilst casting other forms of ‘change’ away from their agenda as ‘reactionary’.
The ‘change’ metric presumes that history only move in one direction – to the Left.
This highlights another reason this metric is wholly unsuitable for the task. The moving left inevitability myth was born in the bowels of Marxist theory more than a century ago. Events have shown that this movement is not always the case, that many a time the trend has been towards liberty and away from the tyranny. In those instances, the use of the ‘change’ metric would require a polar reversal of the terms with the Conservative – Right suddenly being the agents of ‘change’ while the Socialist – Left becomes ‘reactionary’. Clearly, one cannot have a political measurement and spectrum dependent of the events of the moment.
‘Change’ defies the dictionary definitions.
This metric is also wholly unsuitable as the quantifier of the political spectrum. The definitions of Conservative – Right and Socialist – Left and other terms have specific definitions that are independent of the ‘change’ metric. Attempts at the use of this tends to confuse and obfuscate the issues since it is disconnected from reality. But they say in the software business, this is a feature and not a bug. The sowing of confusion in this form tends to help the left in gaining more adherents. After all, who wants to be said to be against ‘progress’ and ‘change’?
‘Change’ as a means of casting certain political movements incorrectly.
One of the more egregious reasons the left uses this metric is to attempt to cast certain Socialist worker’s Party’s as somehow being on the opposite side of the political spectrum. After all, if one is going to throw out the dictionary and the logical basis of the political spectrum, why not go full bore and wrongly cast a certain set of socialist villains as being on the Right? With a subjective metric disconnected from reality, it’s easy to cast those from the Socialist – Left as somehow vestiges of the Conservative – Right.
‘Change’ as a means to cast old ideas as ‘new’.
With ‘change’ being an obscure and vague metric, the Left can use it to cast it’s old ideas as ‘new’. The fact is the basic principles of Collectivism have been around for centuries. Characterising them as ‘change’ can hide their decided lack of ‘freshness’. As previously discussed, the vague and ill defined nature of the metric can be used to advantage to cast opposition to old failed ideas as reactionary. This gives the left a convenient excuse to avoid discussions of these ideas. This has added bonus of casting that opposition as set in the past, with their point of view being seen as ‘progressive’ and of the future by implication.
Why change what works?
But let us look at this issue from another perspective. There is the old aphorism of “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it”, so why is ‘change’ always considered to be a positive development? Why change what has been shown to function better than any other ideological systems?
“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Sir Winston Churchill
Mankind has found the best form of government based upon free market principles. And as Sir Winston Churchill stated 70 years ago, it is the best in terms of every other form. So why is there any point in trying the other forms that have repeatedly failed to function? The parasite ideologies of collectivism do not work no matter their labeling or leadership, so is there any point in trying them ever again even if they are characterized as ‘change’?
Liberty is the best political measurement.
What really is the point of using a metric that tends to favour one side and is ill-defined? Why use a term that necessitates the remaking of definitions by the inconstant political winds of the moment? There is no reason to use a term that only serves to confuse and obfuscate the issues of the day. Even the Socialist – Left on occasion uses the term ‘liberal’ based on the same root word as Liberty. This should be the standard for the measurement of government power, not one that obfuscates the issues and is a supreme advantage of one side.