The presidential campaigns this cycle have talked a lot about change, and how we need change in the U.S. Let us stipulate that this is an imperfect society that can be improved, so some changes may be good.
If you've traveled abroad recently, as the DrsC have on several occasions, you also know that for all its faults, the U.S. is still for most of us the safest, most comfortable place on the planet. The water is drinkable, the police don't need bribing, you can get a decent burger and fries, and the gasoline is still some of the cheapest in the developed world. And, if you've found another place you like better, there is no requirement that you must stay here.
In short, things here could be a lot worse. In most places around the globe they are worse. When someone offers you change, you need to ask "Okay, what do you propose to change and will I like the new reality better than the present one?" The devil, as they say, is in the details.
"Change, with no details given" as a political platform only makes sense if you believe your life cannot be worse off than it is now. That condition is true for vanishingly few Americans.
Could our lives be better? Sure. Do you believe a politician can make that happen? The odds are against it. Could our lives be worse? Sure. Do you believe a politician can make that happen? The odds favor this unhappy outcome.
So when some candidate offers you change, ask what change and why he (or she) believes it can be accomplished. Scepticism with regard to campaign rhetoric is highly desirable.
