Amongst recent manifestations of the puppet parade known as the “American political process,” one candidate – identity completely unimportant – allegedly became unhinged on being accused by another of being “in favour of the status quo.” In other words the accuser knew that the voting public wants change, and it wants their politicians to promise change, so no modern politician wants to be accused of not being in favour of change. Sure enough, the accusation struck home.
Similarly in Great Britain (once “Great,” maybe), it seems that last year’s new Prime Minister announced his intentions in a speech mentioning some 15 times the word “change.” Where in Heaven’s name does such restlessness come from?
Now by no means everybody today admits that human nature is a given framework inside which man has free will to operate as he chooses, but outside of which, or against which, he is powerless to do anything. On the contrary, are not modern men, for instance communists or feminists, proud of up-heaving any such supposedly given framework? “We are changing human nature,” boasted Lenin.
However, might not this restlessness of today’s political public and so of its puppit politicians be a testimony to the existence of that abiding human nature? Might not its unyielding resistance to all efforts to change it explain why one effort fails after another, and so the attempt to make a “new man” for a “new world” must be constantly –
In truth, God exists and it is He who is the giver of man’s given nature. It has not changed since Adam and Eve, except for the damage that they – and not God! – did to it by their original sin. However for the last 500 years mankind has been in rising revolt against the Giver and his givens. Of course the revolt does not work. But men persist in their folly, and will not vote for politicians who do not promise “change.”