Change as a Constant

Management gurus offer the adage, “If you don’t manage change, change will manage you”. However, change for the meek is frightening while change for those satisfied with the status quo is threatening; but, change for the motivated is opportunity. Change is the only constant in life, yet how we deal with change may determine or influence multiple aspects of our being. Stature and comfort in one’s own shoes may reflect the philosophy of an individual and how he/she perceives and manages change which occurs in the process of normal life-spans. Change in management is inevitable, both in government and in professional association affairs.

Governance models are numerous and usually in an educated civilized world reflect the desires of those being governed. Theologically, the Holy Bible provides a rule and guide by which many model their lives. Similarly, the Constitution of the United States of America provides a framework for the governance of our Nation. Social and civil societies do not remain constant; however, how does one maintain consistency without these rudders and steering frameworks to maintain direction through inherent changes of a lifetime? History is the best reflection on the trials of successful and failed governance models. How can one know where they are going if they don’t know where they have been?

In recognizing history, a group of men once penned, “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate but equal station, for which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them. A decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they declare the causes which impel the separation”. This introduction to the Declaration of Independence pronounces a point where certain ideologies are consistent within a combined populace. However, changes occurring within the process of daily living often reflect a divergence of ideologies within the same populace. Hence, the Founders, through the expertise of Jefferson and Madison, created a governing document which by law erected a wall separating theologically-based personal and social aspects of life from those civil aspects of life required with human cohabitation. Any intermingling of personal and social ideologies with those required in civil affairs necessarily undermines the continuity of the whole Nation.

A liberal mindset is one which removes responsibility from the individual and relinquishes social, personal, and civil responsibilities to a central being. Conservatism reflects an attitude where individual liberty and personal sovereignty maintain an individual’s personal responsibility for all affairs which affect their lives. The progression of free-society often reveals over time a widening continuum of ideologies within a given population. Longevity of a governance model in these free societies reflects the success of delineating personal and social affairs from those of a civil nature. Historically, the two cannot co-exist! Enter the dilemmas in our national society today.

Professional associations often experience identical situations where once a homogeneous membership becomes more diverse over time. A growing diversity of practice scenarios requiring different knowledge and skill sets may evolve to a point where basic licensure cannot extend a particular scope of practice. Specialty and sub-specialties may require unique and individualized abilities which reflect diverse education and training. As the continuum of sub-specialties grows, the basic level of licensure becomes remote. Example: plastic surgeons are board certified in general surgery; however, after five years of plastic surgery, would you want to have a colon resection performed by a plastic surgeon? Regulatory requirements for a one size fits all basic level of practice may suffice for initial licensure; however, should such requirements be required for sub-specialties after initial certification?

The extent to which a professional association’s governance model reflects the will of the basic membership can be defined by by-laws, etc. However, when the governing body extends its influence beyond the basic level of practice which is the common denominator of the association, a certain amount of push-back should be expected. A liberal or progressive governance model may very well infringe upon the individual and personal practice rights of members in the profession who do not desire nor request a specific opinion from their professional association.

“When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another………….that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it…”.

History, my friend; it’s all about History!

3 thoughts on “Change as a Constant

  1. Honestly, I don’t recognize politics anymore, especially those that are in Washington. It used to be that you could witness healthy debate over issues such as tax, social security, immigration, energy policy, etc. Once the day was done, you could find those same combatants enjoying a cup of coffee or an adult beverage of their choice carrying on friendly chit-chat. Now, everyone wears a uniform and if your uniform does not match somebody else’s, you are the mortal enemy. If you got caught having a friendly word or two with someone in another uniform, you suddenly became someone that could not be trusted. This attitude has come down from the top. One of the issues of our current President goes back to a debate before his first term in office. He was challenged by the Republican candidate to convince the American public that he could peacefully and respectfully reach across the aisle in any attempts to work things out. Either the aisles got too wide for his arms to reach across or some sort of invisible force field is preventing that from happening but he is the most disrespectful person I have witnessed in the White House that i can remember. It is said that it all starts from the top and anybody will have a major task in front of them if they are to convince me that this is not the case now.


    1. I too am gravely concerned that identity politics, like political correctness, is eroding any remaining credibility our government has, which is already zilch! obama acknowledged this morning his across-the-board personal and policy failures that have created the worst divisiveness in our history, but he accepted no responsibility for them. He blamed others. The hallmark of a true leader is owning your failures. Our Nation needs true leadership from any quadrant – executive, legislative, judicial, populace at large. Instead, we continue to settle for dangerous mediocrity on the world stage, and our military is at its worst state of readiness (across-the-board) in modern history. Our vulnerabilities to enemies – foreign and domestic – have increased exponentially since this president took office. I grieve for our country…


  2. For me it is stunning to see supposed educated people elected to congress line up like ducks behind the current administration’s socialist/communist agendas. To whit, socialized medicine under obamacare, executive orders that bypass the Constitution in a blatant effort to buy and create a majority bloc of democratic voters by allowing large numbers of illegal citizens rights like voting formerly accorded to only legitimate citizens, clearly illegal behavior from a major governmental organization like the IRS to squelch political opposition and then such behavior is exonerated by executive fiat, and there’s a lot more. Of the worst portent for our Nation, closely resembling pre-war Germany of 1937, is if a former secretary of state if protected from prosecution from gravely serious and clear felony behavior in the server/email scandal in exchange for further political favors and protectionism, namely to protect the sitting president from being taken down in the same towering inferno his secretary of state created. All this in some sort of behind the curtain secret handshake to advance the current administation’s socialistic and communistic goals in the next administration, further eroding our Founding Father’s vision. With large segments of the electorate voting illegally, sanctioned by the current administration, we no longer have a representative government. What will it take for the people to revoke their consent and dismantle the current corrupt administration? How many more straws are necessary??? And, reading history, why is it so difficult for elected representatives to see that the socialism and communism openly advocated by the current administration, in fact a path pursued illegally, is fatally flawed for all of us???


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: