The easiest way to procure the loyalty of the masses is to exploit their discontent with the status quo. Few terms are more reviled than these two words; for many, the status quo stands for stagnation, mediocrity and corruption. Historically, our greatest heroes are those who challenged the prevailing wisdom of their age: Martin Luther, who challenged entrenched ideas regarding faith and worship; Albert Einstein, who challenged our understanding of gravity and physics; and Rosa Parks, who challenged national assumptions regarding race and segregation. These are just a few of the many people who have upended the status quo, and left an indelible footprint on history in the process.
The term “status quo” is derived from Latin, and means the present or existing state of affairs. The grand experiment of human society suggests that civilization will always require refinement; perfection is not a destination but a journey. Certainly, those brave souls who quit us from our complacency deserve our admiration and respect; nevertheless, there are many unsung heroes who merit praise for doing exactly the opposite. These heroes recognize that the status quo is not always evil; they implore us to pause and exercise restraint, even as the winds of change would sweep us up in a turbulent cacophony of rapture and triumph.
Ultimately, change must not be celebrated merely for change’s sake. To understand this concept, it is helpful to recognize the difference between the concepts of evolution and mutation as they occur in nature. For the sake of this argument, we’ll narrowly define these terms as follows: evolution is the necessary process by which organisms adapt and thrive in a changing environment; mutation is change run-amok, and often produces negative side effects. In nature, a species may evolve over time to move from a fertile environment to an arid one – doing so helps it acclimate to changes in its surroundings. In stark contrast to this example we may find an organism which randomly sprouts an extra limb or appendage due to genetic abnormality – rather than help the organism, this mutation serves as a debilitating handicap and reduces its odds for survival and procreation.
Our common challenge is learning to recognize the agents of change who advocate healthy evolution, and those who promote radical, harmful mutation. Unfortunately, our natural inclination toward discontent blurs our vision and makes such distinctions difficult. Why are we so eager to embrace these revolutionaries? What internal dynamic makes their zealous appeal so intriguing? I believe the answer lies in the frightening reality that our greatest strengths as a species are intertwined with our greatest weaknesses. Among these is a natural desire to rise above our present circumstances; once a civilization attains any measure of success or prosperity, previous benchmarks begin to lose their luster. Boredom prevails. Unhappy with the status quo, we ask ourselves, “Can’t we do better?” Innocuous though this question may first appear, it takes on a dangerous aspect when we fail to consider the corresponding counter, “Could we do worse?”
Consider the old tale of the man and the goose that laid golden eggs. A peasant farmer makes the happy discovery that one of his animals, a goose, has begun to lay eggs made of solid gold. Though initially thrilled by the dramatic improvement to his lifestyle provided by the magical goose, he quickly becomes unhappy with the rate at which the gold is produced. Convinced that he can obtain an immediate reward by cutting the goose open and harvesting all of the gold he believes is waiting inside, the man foolishly destroys this miraculous wealth creating animal. No gold is found inside the dead creature. His desire for more condemns him to less.
Humanity’s progressive nature is both its greatest strength and its greatest liability. The story above is an example of greed and avarice, but our natural discontent can manifest itself in other ways. Often, our desire for a “better way” is a reaction to difficult or trying circumstances. The Great Depression provides a historical example of this impulse. Most historians credit the beginning of the Great Depression to the stock market crash on October 29, 1929 – often referred to as “Black Tuesday”. In the wake of this economic disaster, Congressman W.C. Hawley and Senator Reed Smoot proposed a comprehensive set of tariffs on imported goods. By raising the price imports, they argued, American businesses would face less competition at home while continuing to sell their goods abroad. The bill to enact these tariffs became known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Over one thousand economists signed a petition begging then President Hoover to veto this bill; nevertheless, in response to the prevailing sense of national desperation, the feeling that something had to be done, the bill was signed into law on June 17, 1930. Once the United States began imposing tariffs on imports from other countries, those same countries retaliated by imposing tariffs on American goods. International trade became stagnate. The Great Depression descended to catastrophic levels.
The rallying cry for change is hard to ignore in crisis situations. The possibility of an easy solution or “quick-fix” is frighteningly seductive. This siren call of miraculous transformation blurs our perspective; thus, our desire to believe is so strong we often fail to ask the questions that will reveal the true nature of the proposed solution – be it helpful evolution or harmful mutation. Ironically, in the example of the Great Depression many historians point to signs that the economy was beginning to recover before the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was passed; so much of the pain and misery experienced during this dark chapter in American history could have been avoided if we had taken a measured, deliberate approach to the crisis. If only we had stuck with the status quo!
Whether our greed in times of plenty, or our anxiety in times of need, discontent can be a powerful instrument when harnessed by those who would use it to pursue their own agendas. Many have noted that Adolf Hitler’s meteoric rise to power was only possible in the climate of despair that prevailed in Germany following World War I. Though he initially delivered on his promise of prosperity, his philosophies ultimately lead to Germany’s disintegration and disgrace – the stain of the Holocaust lasting to the present day.
How do we distinguish the true agents of progress, the prophets of positive change, from the charlatans who would lead us to ruin? The wisdom to make this distinction is not easily won; it requires us to separate reason from passion. We must learn to separate our beliefs from our desires, seeing things as they are and not as we want them to be. Though change may be necessary, it is never free. If we heed the call to walk a different road we must endeavor to recognize the unavoidable cost and prepare to pay the toll.
Beware the advocate who seeks to enlist you in a cause while speaking only glibly about its required sacrifice; the Devil is always in the details. An easy example of this pretense is the politician who validates the fears and frustrations of a population; he offers bold promises of change, but fails to describe the necessary cost. Frequently, the rhetoric of such a person is mistaken for strength – we applaud his resolve and reward him with our votes. This deceit is not confined to the world politics; a struggling business may entertain a radical proposal to “turn the corner”, and make a hasty decision which leads to disaster. Individually, those struggling to make ends-meet are often easy prey for snake-oil salesmen who offer a path to wealth without sacrifice. In any event, a pragmatic approach is required to properly assess our opportunities and avoid making “Faustian bargains” with unforeseen consequences.
There is a fine line between pessimism and pragmatism; frequently the latter is mistaken for the former. Pessimists only see the impossible; unwilling to acknowledge the prospect of hope they consistently argue against change and progress. Pragmatists understand the necessity of change, but wisely seek to appraise its value and assess its price. Pragmatists may review a plan for improvement and find that the costs outweigh the benefits. In such circumstances, their admonitions and calls for restraint are derided by those who seek to advance the cause. Even when they succeed in stemming the tide of harmful mutation, their accomplishments are quickly forgotten. History isn’t very generous toward the unsung heroes of the status quo.
Perhaps the greatest irony in the conflict between progress and the status quo is the inseparable nature of these two opposing concepts. What we consider common-place today was once radical and revolutionary. The advocates of change yesterday laid the foundation for the status quo as we know it in the present. These revolutionaries vigorously fought to imprint their ideals on human society; the fact that their ideas attained a level of permanence is a testament to their quality. Though times change, and once beneficial ideas become obsolete, we should proceed cautiously before discarding the wisdom of the past. Sadly, the very nature of the status quo compels us to take it for granted; only through conscious, disciplined effort can we truly appreciate the legacy it represents. Such wisdom will allow us to address the vices of the status quo, without forsaking its virtue.
I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!
Politics | Christopher Wood April 29, 2008 | 
Comments (4) 
