Should social change be swift or should it come slowly?

[Deja Q]

For reforming education, bringing in national health care, corporate reform, our dependence on OIL, et cetera.

Let it go slowly and we may not have a society left by the time we even get 1/4th of the way to making America a tolerable place again.

We need reforms on all sorts of levels and they need to be done NOW. No more pussyfooting.

[Rashind]

1. Two options...

Either elect a radical left candidate and a congress he/she can work with, or pray hard for a swift civil war. Since we're all a bunch of damned hippie peaceniks, the civil war probably won't be happening. Maybe we can wait for the montana militias to outsmart the feds? You laugh... but the feds ARE getting dumber. :evilgrin:

[Mikimouse]

2. Historically, social change is a slow process

initially, but with a tendency to accelerate over time. If social change proceeds too quickly, the results could be just as negative as if it happens 'too slowly', or not at all. The industrial revolution, combined with the massive political changes engendered by the French Revolution, brought about an era of social change so great in magnitude and scope that it became necessary to begin to study societies in a scientific manner. We are still experiencing the effects of industrialization, in some ways. Look at Spencer and Social Darwinism-can we see examples of adherents to this approach? How about another-Sex Role Theory? All of these things emerged from periods of rapid social change. Rapid social change (just my opinion) leaves many stones unturned, while slower social change gives us the opportunity to treat the real problems as they arise, rather than treating the superficial symptoms afterward.