Deja Vue all over again...

Listening to Barack Obama's acceptance speech was heartening in that he mentioned that change in Washington will only begin with each of us making Washington change. This is a bold step for a politician to say they are not the catalyst required to begin change, especially after running on a platform of change for almost a year.
The founding fathers recognized that the individual is the agent of change, and they acted both individually and together to foment change during our revolutionary period. They had the "luxury" of not having instant communication in that individuals with similar motivations and values acted in disparate locations in a similar manner; the luxury was that they did not have this information sometimes for months until reports reached them of such activity and showed that other patriots were actively working for the same ends. It was not until later that the Letters of Correspondence began between the colonies that eventually brought these individuals together in a common bond that jelled with the 1st Continental Congress.
We have instant communication today, such as this blog, that allows us to converse with others of like mind. However, it also allows others to monitor such conversations with an eye toward suspicion; we are just short of having another Committee on Un-American Acitivities in place with a few paranoid and out-of-touch politicos deeming any open conversation on the direction of this nation as being harmful.
I admit to being a registered Republican, leaning Democratic and firmly Moderate. I don't see any of this as being contradictory; it is identifying with the ideals of each that match mine. I could be called "independent" but that tag has been anathema in the political process, with anyone outside of the mainstream parties marginalized and mostly ignored, both by the major parties themselves and the media, whether liberal or conservative. But it leaves me free to make up my own mind and my own decisions; professing an alignment with a major party provides political access the "independent" does not have, so it's a practical choice rather than idealogical.
The gist of my ramblings? Learn to think independently and critically; listen to the words and watch the actions; be wary of both idolitry and iconoclasts; trust no one to act in your best interests but have a deep and underlying faith in the American public to act responsibly; open yourself to action rather than observation, but observe sufficiently to act appropriately.
Real change requires real action, not rhetoric. Be the change, be the action. We have enough rhetoric to go around already.

Political change?

It is interesting watching the DNC and all the talk about change in Washington, how the "party" is standing up for the little people. This while the "Pilosi 100" are in the skyboxes in the hall feasting on catered food, private entertainment and waiting on-stage to shake hands with Bill C, Hillary and the rest of the premier speakers.
Granted, I have no doubt the RNC will be just as blatant in their appeals and just as guarded in their "high-roller" attendance. You don't run a national presidential campaign without the big $$.
Change needs to happen in Washington, yes, and I'm sure some will come with an Obama election. But you don't get to be a party nominee without being an "insider" already, and you certainly can't make the changes that need to be made unless you have party backing, and your goals may be at loggerheads at that point.
The problem is the parties. George Washington and John Adams both were wary of a fractional party system, and both warned against it. It was Thomas Jefferson who ran the first real "political" campaign against John Adams, dirty tricks and all. Everything GW and JA were cautious about were proven in the fourth presidential election.
Elected officials need to be citizens first, representatives second and politicians last. Public office at the highest levels has become a path to fortune, through speaking engagements and other "ancillary" payments. Rather, it should be a goal of public service, not riches, that propel citizens into office. Knowing the workings of the bureaucracy is the job of career governmental employees; its how the work gets done. Knowing the will and the good of the people is the job of the elected official.
I'm not sure either candidate is a candidate of "change." Real change will occur when we have real options, when we have a real democratic election in a republic. Both are good men, but are constrained by their need to satisfy their party and how they appear to us, neither too conservative or too liberal, too hawkish or too dovish. An informed citizenry needs no "shades" of appearance to make a reasoned decision; we are given too little credit and too much smoke and mirrors.
If what we believe guides how we vote and not the rhetoric being thrown at us, if our belief in this country and its ability to do right home and abroad exists, if we recognize that in this time we can no longer be an island of democracy but a river of democracy flowing to other lands and joining other rivers of democracy on a similar journey, if we can recognize that the people we elect are prone to error but capable of great and noble deeds, then, then we can initiate change at its most basic level. Within ourselves, and that is where change in government begins - with the governed.