What and When

The “what” varies and depends upon that which is being demanded: freedom, rights, equality, wages, and so on. The “when”, however is constant: NOW! Both terms are ever-present in modern demonstrations and while the what may be reasonable, the when may be a polar opposite. Why is that, I wonder. Could it be that we have become so accustomed to instant gratification that we draw parallels from our technological world to matters of society and state where change occurs at a much slower pace?

It all began with the microwave oven, I’d say. Until then, we were all pretty much content to plan ahead when it came to our family life and the requisite meals and entertainment contained therein. All of a sudden, meal planning did not necessarily involve lengthy preparation. Whip it up (or buy it in a box), toss it in the microwave and, voila, dinner! Since that long ago time, we’ve discovered Tivo and other recording devices that enable us to watch TV on our schedule while skipping those pesky commercials. Video on demand adds to our ability to instantly gratify our cravings. And the internet has brought us a veritable endless supply of information and entertainment at the touch of a button.

Is it any surprise that we’ve come to expect what we want right now? The problem lies in the transference of that expectation to realms that do not rely on electrons: society at large and the associated legislative process that leads (hopefully) to progress for us all. The recent Senatorial election in Massachusetts may be a case in point. There can be little doubt that the status quo in the Bay State has been turned ass over tea kettle, but the question should be asked regarding the why?

One explanation could well be that voters didn’t like the Democratic candidate or identified more closely with the Republican who drives a truck. Another could lie in the fact that the Massachusetts medical plan closely resembled the proposed federal overhaul and voters weren’t crazy about expanding a program that has met with debatable success. But it could also be because, after one year in the White House, President Obama has yet to deliver on many (or any) of his campaign’s major promises and it’s time for a change wherever the opportunity presents itself.

The last possibility is the most disturbing to me because it speaks of this instant gratification problem I’ve described above. Is one year enough time to change the course of our ship of state? If so, maybe a Presidential term should be shortened accordingly. Personally, in today’s partisan atmosphere, I’d say that getting anything done in four years would be borderline amazing. No, a one year litmus test on overall effectiveness within the Beltway just ain’t fair.

Neither is the ever-popular “first hundred days”. A new administration and, presto, everything changes? No way, no how. We’re not talking about scrambling electrons into action in a nano-second. We’re talking about elected officials with ingrained philosophies and vested interests in avoiding large scale change. Left or right or middle, it makes no difference: to expect overnight results leads to further frustration and a deeper disenchantment with the political process. We need to be smarter and avoid comparing technological wizardry with the more mundane and time consuming endeavor of reshaping the priorities and policies of the world around us.

Change may be good, but not for the sake of change alone. We need to give our current plan time to sprout and prosper. If, after a reasonable period of time, it doesn’t bear fruit then perhaps we need to think about changing the game plan. But let’s not be too hasty in pulling something out just as it begins to take root. Save your instant gratification for leisure pursuits or food preparation and practice patience on more important matters that have far reaching consequences.