In my last post, I intimated that we should redefine the “Hope and Change” message by defining what we are hoping for “as a government that is responsive to the people and is fiscally responsible”.  Although I lean to the right, sometimes I’m wrong and in this case I was very wrong, for several reasons.

First, declaring that hoping that government will be responsive to the people and fiscally responsible, on second glance, was an asinine comment by me.  Hoping for anything from the government is idiotic.  We get the government we deserve based on who we elect.  If we have a bunch of drunk-with-power, irresponsible spenders who are not in tune with the people, it’s our own fault for electing them (and in many cases, continuing to re-elect them).  No amount of hope is going to change that.  The only thing that will is for the electorate to stop acting like a bunch of spoiled children and electing representatives who promise them government goodies.  The only way to stop politicians from being bought off is to quit being bought off ourselves.  We complain that politicians, on both sides, are corrupt.  Of course they are, because corrupt people elect them.  How can we expect any better from politicians when we push for pork barrel spending that benefits us?  We complain about bridges to nowhere, but not so much against that rich government contract that benefits our own community.  When we stop relying on government to provide, then we will stop getting politicians who look to take advantage of us to line their own pockets and build their own little DC fiefdoms.

Second, hope is a faith concept.  It is the glue that connects a cause with an effect.  When we speak of hope, what we usually mean is that we’ve taken an action and believe, based on the odds, that the outcome will be good.  We help our kids with their homework (a cause).  Then we hope that they will get good grades (the effect of help with homework).  We work hard (a cause) and hope that it will result in a promotion or raise (the effect).  If you are a person of religious faith, you hope that because you do whatever your faith requires, that one day, you will receive some eternal reward.  Although Obama says we are not a Christian nation, a majority still profess they are Christians.  In Christianity, our hope is that by placing our faith in Jesus Christ (the cause), we will someday spend eternity in heaven (the effect).  So again, to link hope to government is asinine.  Madison declared that government is a necessary evil.  Why would you hope for anything from something evil?  Government, by nature, will continue to exert itself more into our lives, not less, as it seeks to increase its influence.

Finally, I believe that “HOPE” entered the political lexicon simply as a way to win over the less discerning, but nominally faithful America.  By linking a religious concept with his campaign and with government itself, Obama was attempting to elevate himself, consciously or not, to some semi-messianic status.  Unfortunately, that plan worked.  In the upcoming elections in 2010 and 2012, the challenges our country faces are too large to simply sit around hoping.  We need to elect people of action who will make the hard decisions to make radical (and perhaps unpopular) cuts in government spending.  If we don't, the future of this country and our children, is going to be one of total slavery to pay off the debt we are leaving them.  Leave hope where it belongs, in our own individual lives linking our own actions with (hopeful) results.

For 2010, we should change the slogan “Hope and Change 2.0” to “Soap and Change”.  Soap, because we want to clean up government, and change, well because there’s a lot that needs changing in Washington, D.C.