Some Thoughts on the Election
The November/December, 2012, Gilbert Magazine Editorial
The election is over, and Republicans are pointing fingers, trying to assess blame for why Mitt Romney lost to a spectacularly weak candidate like President Obama. By any standard, the President has shown himself to be beneath his pay grade. A tunnel-visioned ideologue, instead of pushing policies to create jobs Obama made a government takeover of the health care industry the centerpiece of his first term—a “reform” that is guaranteed to make a bad system worse.
The value of the dollar continues to fall; “bailouts” that were supposed to create jobs went to cronies whose businesses subsequently failed. On national security, Obama gave himself the authority to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial, and those he doesn’t want to jail, he adds to an infamous “kill list.” He has slaughtered innocent civilians with drone attacks in Pakistan, and literally bows to leaders of Third World nations. He and his staff watched—in real time—while highly organized militia in Benghazi, Libya, murdered the U.S. ambassador there and three others. Then they lied about it, blaming the attack on a YouTube video that no one had heard of. This last outrage was two months before the election.
And Romney still lost.
But that wasn’t the strange bit. What was strange was seeing our president attacked by his own people. I’m referring, of course, to Dale Ahlquist, the President of the American Chesterton Society, who was attacked by members of the society because he takes G.K. Chesterton seriously. He really does believe that Hudge and Gudge are against Jones. He made it clear that he would cast his vote for neither of the two major candidates for the President of that other society, the United States of America. The two parties those two candidates represented do not champion Jones; rather, they represent Big Government and Big Business. Neither do they cherish the God-given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (as opposed to the pursuit of pleasure). They certainly do not represent the Christian ideal. In fact, the Democratic and Republican parties have but two real purposes: to perpetuate a thoroughly corrupt two-party system, and to con voters into thinking they represent an actual choice.
Jones is told that he must vote for the lesser of two evils. But we are Chestertonians, and that choice is unacceptable. We believe in fighting for the good even if the battle is a losing one—and the odds in this fight do not look good. American society is falling apart. Contrary to the lies of Hudge and Gudge, the government is not going to save us. Neither will Wall Street.
One of many points that Dale’s critics missed entirely is that when both candidates talked about the economy they could only measure it in terms of jobs, that is, in the number of wage-slaves. If Gilbert Magazine readers do not yet see this fallacy, then they should expect that “politics as usual” will always be “business as usual,” and they should also expect the coming economic and social collapse.
Jones has been caught in this whirlpool because no one speaks for him. Big Government has robbed him of his freedom and the little capital he had. Big Business has done the same. Jones the welfare recipient is not much different from Jones the wage-slave. He wants everything done for him: his health care, his retirement, his vacation, his calendar. Our entire system is anti-family, and it’s not surprising that we are trying to re-define the family, because what we really want is to be taken care of, including receiving the same employee benefits that whomever we’re sleeping with is receiving. Those who object risk condemnation by the elites, showing once again that, as G.K. Chesterton wrote, “Modern broad-mindedness benefits the rich; and benefits nobody else.”
Our country is moving toward the Left, and the Right is moving left along with it. These two trends are connected. “Conservative” once meant anti-communism coupled with a desire for limited, constitutional domestic government and as little foreign adventurism as possible. Now it means constant warfare to push democracy at the point of a gun, obscene civil rights abuses like torture, unfettered domestic surveillance, and unbridled domestic spending. In other words, it means Woodrow Wilson liberalism abroad and Lyndon Johnson liberalism at home—all policies that, yes, Romney supported.
We warned in this space a few months ago that Occupy Wall Street protesters represent a real frustration that the Right has dismissed at its peril. We noted that the Tea Party Movement also represents a real frustration that, despite its noble purpose, does not yet offer a comprehensive solution. Until common people peel the scales from their eyes and quit lying to themselves, nothing will change, and our two ruling political parties will continue to elect Presidents that perpetuate the status quo, who serve Hudge and Gudge and crush Jones. It is no longer Left vs. Right, but the ruling class vs. the rest of us. Those of us who constitute “the rest of us” must learn to put aside the petty selfishness that is dividing America.
Readers of Gilbert Magazine know all too well how deep some of those divisions are. The ruling class is powerful, and we’re fighting what appears to be a losing battle. But as Chesterton says, “The one perfectly divine thing, the one glimpse of God’s paradise given on earth, is to fight a losing battle—and not lose it.”
—Sean P. Dailey for the editorial board of Gilbert Magazine
I have just discovered your blog from the Chesterton Society Facebook page that I found after finding and starting to read Dale Ahlquist’s book, ‘The Complete Thinker.’ Because I am new I can’t say that I understand the reference to Hudge and Gudge and Jones but that aside I agree almost entirely with your assessment. I would perhaps not be so critical of Romney for, considering where we have devolved as a society, I don’t know how we can get a perfect candidate to take on the monster that we have created – or have allowed to be created – outside of the current political parties. Romney, I believe, is a good man and would have properly started a process of returning foundational principles to our nation and society. As we stand now, that process will take a generation at least to complete. However, the further down this road we travel, the more difficult our return to the fork in the road that derailed us. Sadly, a vote for neither of the candidates, in my view, was a vote to continue down this sad trail.
I do agree that to be a Republican or Democrat today resembles very little what it meant twenty or thirty years ago, much less in the early seventies when I came of age to vote for the first time.
At what point did Gilbert Magazine become the Hudge and Gudge Quarterly? The American Chesterton Society, The American Distributist Society? Furthermore, at what point did the Holy Father and the Magisterial teaching authority of the Church include the implementation of a distributist economic model as a non-negotiable for Catholic voters?
I think what you’re missing, is that the larger the influence and dependence on the centralized State gets, the more of so called crony capitalism there is. Or,, big business loves it, and the evil aspects of Wall st only get far worse! Romney was representing the group which has some rudimentary understanding of the corrupting influence of power, and why less is more, for the people. “The bigger the government the smaller the citizen.” is no small phrase from his side. Whoever didn’t vote for Romney, and is not a statist, is either a fool or making excuses for their emotively satisfying decision not to vote. How could you not know this?
It might help if there was actually a battle to lose. As it is, neither Mr. Ahlquist, nor any of you distributists, will run for office. Hence, I find the political commentary to be increasingly absurd. If you’re so wise, why aren’t you king?
Nemo, we aren’t king…because we’re wise.
Nice. I guess not all old-fashioned conservatives (like me) are convinced that the Republican party and the Democrat party are just two names for the same CRONY CAPITALIST PARTY.
Japes,
I agree that Romney was speaking to those who have an “understanding of the corrupting influence of power, and why less is more, for the people.” At issue is whether or not he was credible in that regard? Absent some certain point in recent history where we can point to an epiphany on his part, I think his pedigree speaks to entirely different mindset that is both statist and corporate in outlook.
“It is no longer LEFT v. RIGHT, but the ruling class v. the rest of us.”
I am quoting this a lot, from now on.
Nemo does have a point – Distributism is great, but if no one is going to get out there and try to win with it, its all rather pointless. The reason I stay with the GOP is because I do believe we can capture it – a long, uphill slog, to be sure, but it is a-dawning to more and more people that Big Government and Big Corporation are two sides of the same coin and it is more likely that a GOPer will understand this a lot faster than a Democrat (though, to be sure, I have found some Democrats rapidly moving towards Distributism, even if they’ve never heard the term before).
The only thing worse than reading Dale Ahlquist’s surrender is reading a sanctimonious defense of it that boils down to: both are bad, so as a wise Chestertonian, choosing either is beneath me. What an intellectually vacuous position.
The choices were not equally bad. One side racked up $1.7Trillion (with a T) annual debts, attacked the religious liberty and consciences all thoughtful, religious Americans, not just Catholics, and has in its platform that abortion should be legal without restriction, in addition to continuing the policies for which you castigate the Republicans.
No choice worthy of a Chestertonian? Spare me. Failure to stand against these policies allowed the party described above to win. Congratulations.
And now that you have made your “principled” stand, tell me, did it make that party’s policies better? Did it stop the attacks on our faith? Did it cause anyone on the left to reflect that maybe partial birth abortion is infanticide after all? Did it slow the runaway spending? Did it inflame the masses to rise up against those policies? No. All it did was give you the opportunity to say that no matter how bad it gets, you didn’t vote for the winner. It wasn’t your fault. I have news for you. By failing to stand up for the principles espoused by Chesterton, you are complicit in their defeat.
And don’t think that I am uncritical of the Republicans. I am vey critical of them for their profligate spending that could only look small by comparison to our current spending. But I am adult enough to know that the answer is not to take my toys and go home. I will continue to work to bring conservatism back into government, but we can’t do that by sitting on our hands or writing snarky responses to gracious readers.
You’re right that it appears tonight to be a losing battle, but at least some of us are fighting it. You can’t win it with your arms folded on the sidelines.
Nicely put, Steve. Distributism is a commendable economic model, but its implementation does not take precedence over our responsibility to save unborn children; and in spite of what Ahlquist and Dailey say, there was a clear choice in this election. I don’t care how the glimmer twins try to spin this, there is no way Chesterton would have endorsed, in effect, sitting this election out.
Of course, the either/or proposition of implementing an economic model and saving the lives of the unborn is really a distraction. It isn’t either/or, but both. I’m not buying “we can’t until…” arguments. We can advocate for banning all forms of abortion (and contraception, by the way) and also restore justice in the marketplace.
The difference between our position and yours is we didn’t vote for the lesser of the two pro-abortion radicals.
@Richard, Agree that implementing an economic model and stopping abortion are not mutually exclusive, but that’s a red herring argument. Distributism wasn’t on the ballot. Abortion, on the other hand was. Google the Republican Party Platform and word-search Abortion, then do the same for the Democratic Party platform to see the difference in their positions. There is no comparison and no justification in calling Romney a pro-abortion radical.
You seem to find solace in the idea that you didn’t vote for the less-bad candidate, but your inaction enabled the more-bad candidate to win. I couldn’t live with that kind of guilt, no matter how many other disagreements I had with Romney.
Romney–a “pro-abortion radical?” Paul Ryan, the same? You can’t continue to peddle this distortion, Richard. By the way, for whom then did you corporate ACSers vote? In view of the fact that many of us have made plain our choice in the most recent election, it seems only fair that you let us ignorati know for whom you voted and why. As things stand, I’ll be certain to pass on your pearls of wisdom to my 5’2″ button of a bride who courageously sidewalk-counsels women in crisis pregnancies every Thursday at one of the larger abortion mills in Chicago. I’m sure she’ll take great consolation from your position.
Of course, the red herring is for those who believe not voting for one enables the other. For them there is very little persuasion otherwise. Romney’s record speaks for itself.
Romney’s record speaks for itself.
@Richard The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Please do tell what positive effect your sitting out the election had? Besides of course making yourselves feel superior to the masses who did try to do something about abortion, spending, etc. Romney was not the ideal candidate, but, while being too “wise” (See Dailey above) to run your own distributist candidates, you emboldened the pro-abortion without restrictions, pro-unlimted government, pro-Wall Street faction to pursue its anti-Jones agenda.
So your complaint isn’t that good men do nothing. It’s that the something we didn’t do was vote for either tribal candidate.
Steve, you make good sense. But it won’t be enough to penetrate the ACS distributist cabal. Of course, Aleman, Dailey, Ahlquist, will continue to vilify Romney unjustly on the life issue because they know that is the only way their argument can hold water. Once one sees that their depiction of the Romney/Ryan ticket on life is a distortion, their argument falls apart like a house of cards. Aleman smugly cites–the ACS glitterati are good at this–that Romney’s record speaks for itself. Well, with all due respect to our colleagues at the ACS, the record will show that the Romney/Ryan ticket was considerably different from the Obama/Biden ticket on the sanctity of life. The frustrating dimension of all this is that I recognize the intrinsic value and goodness of the distributist model. My wife and I and all of our pro-life friends in the area do our best to support local businesses and fair trade policies. Many of us grow our own vegetables, compost, and make use of rain barrels. So, we indeed see the importance of promoting a local, family-based, worker-affirming, economy–and we’ve been doing these things for years. We have already outlined repeatedly that the Romney/Ryan ticket could have tightened up its position on life. We know this. But to suggest that there was no difference between the two tickets is utterly absurd. The bewildering efforts of the ACS to discredit Romney/Ryan on life continues to mystify me. Once again, the whole edifice for ACS stands on Romney being, “a pro-abortion radical.” Take that away, and things begin to look, and smell, much different.
“the ACS distributist cabal”
Yeah. If only.
How was it unjust to “vilify” Romney/Ryan on the abortion issue when they both are on record being in favor of legal abortion? Granted, they accept a narrower set of circumstances than does Obama, but they still abortion to remain legal, nonetheless. Paul Ryan in particlar was a disappointment. We expected Mitt Romney to bend with the wind and to say whatever he felt he had to say to get the nomination and to not lose by too wide a margin in the election. But Paul Ryan went into this with a solid pro-life voting record. He compromised himself almost immediately once he became Romney’s runnng mate. You can say all you want that he had to adopt the position of his boss. But as a Catholic — and has a man — he would have done far better to tell Romney, “I am against legal abortion in all circumstances. If that is not good enough to be your running-mate, then I must respectfully decline the offer.”
That alone would have advanced the cause for life far more than him caving on the exception for rape and incest.
The most tragic event of the election came the night of the vice presidential debate, at the end, when Ryan and Biden were asked about abortion. Biden gave the pathetic and theologically abysmal answer everyone expected him to give. But Ryan’s answer was not much better. He played it safe because he put a political office above the right to life of the most vulnerable members of society: the unborn.
We had a first — two Catholics running for vice president — and neither gave the only answer that was acceptable: “If you think abortion should be legal for any reason whatsoever, your sense of justice is so warped, you aren’t even worthy to be dog catcher.”
So the distributist/ACS position is to damn them all instead of saving the ones we can and work to save the rest? No wonder you have to paint Romney as a “pro-abortion radical.” We agree that we would have liked to have a candidate that said no abortions under any circumstances, but that wasn’t one of the choices. Mother Theresa said she couldn’t save all the children but she could save this one. That was a good enough place for her to start.
Your concern about abortion is commendable but I am struck that the whole article above was concerned with economics and never mentioned life issues, the attack on the Church or religious liberties. As Jim says, it appears you had to avoid those issues because that’s where your argument falls apart. You can justify standing on the sidelines because neither party has the right economic plan, but you can’t justify leaving the unborn to shift for themselves because you can’t save them all. My wife and I sponsor the education and living expenses for a group of young girls in India. 12 out of 600M poor in that country alone. Guess I shouldn’t bother, by your logic.
I am disappointed in you corporate ACS’rs. You put forth a poorly reasoned position, but everyone does sometime. My disappointment comes from instead of respectfully discussing the merits of it with your fellow ACS members, you resorted to snarky asides until this last post, which really laid bare your lack of reasoning. I guess things seldom look as good up close.
Life in this valley of tears very rarely offers us perfect choices. We as Catholics living in a most flawed world frequently find ourselves having to choose between two options, neither of which is categorically in line with the magisterial teaching authority of our Church, but one of which clearly will result in far less damage being done. By all accounts the presidential election of 2012 was one such case. The CCC, and, I would argue, Thomas More, and even GKC himself, acknowledge that certain circumstances dictate that we choose in just such a way. If a Romney/Ryan ticket would have meant, conservatively, 20,000 fewer abortions a year, it would have been a good start, and it would have been worth it. Furthermore, Sean, please do not try to sell us on the idea that you didn’t endorse R/R because of the rape/incest exception. That is a convenient red herring. Romney and Ryan simply didn’t fit the distributist profile.
I just received word that this recent Gilbert Magazine editorial had been posted here and that it was the cause of some lively give and take. I have been attempting to get a well-reasoned response to Mr. Ahlquist’s poorly reasoned pre-election editorial with little success. Seeing the most recent edition, I was very disappointed to see that the editorial staff of the magazine had doubled down on its position. Following is a summary of my take on recent events, a summary I have posted at my web-site and upon which I have repeatedly attempted to get someone from the ACS or Gilbert Magazine to comment…
I recently initiated a boycott of Gilbert Magazine, not because I dislike the magazine but, on the contrary, because I love it (though I recognize its failings) and I love the American Chesterton Society (ACS). I love these institutions in much the same way that I love the United States of America and in much the same way that I love my alma mater, the University of Notre Dame. I do not love them because of their perfection but, rather, I love them because of their potential good, their potential beauty and even because of the beauty and goodness that has been, hoping that it may be again. I love them with their failings. In fact, I love them so much that I am willing to expose their failings to the light of day. I am eager to love them in a manly way and I fear any failure of love that may manifest itself in the form of indifference. So, in the case of Gilbert Magazine and the ACS my love took the form of a boycott.
The occasion that gave rise to this action of love was the editorial by Dale Ahlquist in an issue of Gilbert Magazine published in the months leading up to the recent presidential election (“Why I Won’t Vote for Mitt Romney”, May/June 2012). I laid out my objections to Mr. Ahlquist’s editorial in another article here at A Sensible Life so I will not say much more about it in this piece other than to say that I found it impossible to get through to folks at the ACS without resorting to the step that I eventually took, the Boycott. The good news is that the Boycott had an almost immediate positive effect. I was able to get the attention of some folks at the ACS. The Boycott engendered some conversation on Mark Shea’s blog as well as on the ACS blog and the ACS Facebook page. Unfortunately, the folks with whom I interacted remain entrenched in their support of Mr. Ahlquist’s position.
Let me just say that though I find Mr. Ahlquist’s position poorly reasoned and indefensible, I would not normally make a public objection to an individual’s privately held belief. The problem with Mr. Ahlquist’s error is manifestly that it is not a private error but one that he made publicly not only in his own name but also “for the editorial board of Gilbert Magazine“. In effect, he relied upon his position on the editorial board of the magazine and as president of the ACS to attempt to sway readers away from a sensible approach to our 2012 elections. Rather than remaining silent or, better yet, encouraging Gilbert readers to actively support the candidate on the correct side (if not absolutely correct, then most certainly correct on a relative basis compared to his opponent) of the great moral absolutes of our day (marriage, life, religious freedom), Mr. Ahlquist led those who would follow him to disregard their civic duty.
In the somewhat jovial though serious debate that ensued as a result of the Boycott, Mr. Shea and other Ahlquist/ACS supporters objected strenuously to my objection but their objections can broadly be summarized in two points: (a) Gilbert Magazine and Mr. Ahlquist have minimal influence in this country and (b) Mr. Romney was a flawed candidate (a point to which I stipulated over and over again). I don’t know which of these objections I found more troubling. The first indicates to me a frivolousness (and by that I do not mean Chestertonian fun!) that is unbecoming of an organization founded upon the memory and thought of the great apologist and social/political commentator, G. K. Chesterton. I cannot imagine Chesterton taking a controversial position and then when that position runs into some public resistance, tucking his tail between his legs and saying, “well it doesn’t really matter what I say because no-one reads what I have to say anyway”. Further, this frivolous response to my objections seems to me to indicate a failure on the part of Gilbert Magazine and the ACS to embrace the significance of the role they could (and frequently do) play in reclaiming our culture and society and the positive impact they could have in the public square. I am glad they had some fun with the Boycott but I am disappointed that to a certain extent their fun became a cover for their inability to defend an indefensible position.
With regard to the second point the Ahlquist/ACS defenders raised, the faults of Mr. Romney as a candidate, I can only say that I found it to be a red herring. Of course, Mr. Romney was a flawed candidate. However, this objection merely served to attempt to distract the conversation away from the fact that they were unwilling to act positively to remove President Obama from office. In all the dialogues in which I engaged, none of the Ahlquist/ACS crowd was willing to admit the obvious: no matter how bad a candidate Mr. Romney was, he was substantively better than President Obama on all three of the great moral absolutes facing us this election cycle (defense of real marriage, protection of innocent life and protection of religious liberty). Why did they refuse to acknowledge this reality? I fear it is because of an ideological bias against Mr. Romney’s party. I also fear there is a substantial contingency within the ACS that appears to hate the Republican Party so much that it is unwilling to ally itself with the Republicans in order to save the lives of innocent children, save the institution of marriage in our country and safeguard our religious freedoms. I realize Mr. Romney would likely not have done all we could hope in any of these areas. But there is no doubt that as a result of having President Obama in office for another four years we will lose more lives of innocent unborns that we would otherwise have done; our religious liberties will be further eroded; and marriage will suffer greater and more powerful attack.
Herein lie the reasons behind the Great Boycott. I wanted to awaken Gilbert Magazine, the ACS and Mr. Ahlquist to their responsibilities as the foremost commentators on Chestertonian thought in the United States. Have fun, by all means but do not be frivolous! Also, I would like to see the ACS work with others of us out here in the hinterlands to educate the American public in authentic Catholic social teaching. For too long Catholic social teaching has been misconstrued in such a way that it has led many men and women of good will to believe in progressivism. Progressivism and big government control of social programs are not authentic manifestations of Catholic social teaching. A proper understanding of gratuitousness, freedom, responsibility, subsidiarity and solidarity will lead us to a distributed approach to dealing with the needs of our brothers and sisters and with our economic activity. These concepts will lead us away from a focus on centralized government.
Let us unite in guiding and informing our society. Let us have fun doing it but let us be serious about it. Let us be willing to work for small victories (like defeating President Obama) when no greater victory is within our grasp!
“Reason is always a kind of brute force; those who appeal to the head rather than the heart, however pallid and polite, are necessarily men of violence. We speak of ‘touching’ a man’s heart, but we can do nothing to his head but hit it.” (GKC) Hence, the Great Boycott…
One of the sad components of this exchange is how much lies under the murky waters of what one calls a red herring. If Sean didn’t endorse the Republican ticket because of the rape/incest clause he would be faithful to Catholic teaching on abortion. How dare he.
“Missing the point is a very fine art; and has been carried to something like perfection by politicians and pressmen today.” (GKC)
What I find sad is that this art continues to be perfected by the ACS and the editorial staff of Gilbert Magazine.
Let me try once again, although I don’t know why.
If the argument he put forth in his editorial was abortion, that would have been one thing; but he didn’t. He made his argument on everything but. Then, when people objected to his stated argument, you corporate ACS’rs treated us all with, frankly, disdain; dismissing our criticism with a series of “witty” one-liners and ad hominem attacks on Romney (even though no one defended him as even a good candidate).
I have tossed the issue with Dale’s editorial that started all of this, unfortunately, but I don’t recall his argument being on abortion either. I remember arguments about the “big forces” driving politics and disdain for the electoral process as it exists. I can’t say categorically that it didn’t, but it sure didn’t seem like it at the time. That’s one argument that would have resonated with me. I searched the ACS site, but can’t find the original text to check for sure.
I find your attitude towards us, your readers, appalling. Instead of giving us the time and consideration due a thoughtful discussion with gracious, fairly likeminded people, you chose instead to be, as Joe says, frivolous. Your response to him shows that you really don’t consider his obviously closely held concerns worth your time. If you had taken the time, you would have seen that your response was a non-sequitur in light of Sean’s editorial and at least my memory of Dale’s.
Maybe Joe is right. Maybe it is time for a time out. I do enjoy the magazine, but next time I hear that it is the “best magazine in the world,” I’ll hear it not as self-effacing and sublime humor but a statement of the arrogance of your editorial board.
If you’d like to discuss the relative merits of abortion and the last election, you have my email.
Richard, please see John Paul II’s comments on this very scenario in, Evangelium Vitae.
Reading Jim’s post makes me sorry that the discussion was not carried on at a higher level where salient points like his could have come out from a gracious and vibrant exchange of ideas instead of polite, well-formed posts followed by snide one-liners. The real sorry part is that the polite, thoughtful posts were, on the most part, from the readers whereas the snide asides were all from the editorial board.
I understand, you guys have built a persona for yourselves. You know Chesterton backwards and forwards and we, generally, don’t (ok, I don’t). But that doesn’t give you license to abuse your readers — even if you had been right.
Thanks for the introduction to Chesterton. Look forward to reading more of it. When you guys want to have an inclusive discussion of the issues of the day in light of Chesterton’s writings and the Catholic Church’s teachings, give me a call. Until then, I’ll take it from here.
And OBTW, thank you for the refund of my dues. The Tepeyac Clinic will be grateful for the donation in your name.
I just made a quick scan of the comments, and I find no evidence that anybody connected with the ACS wrote anything abusive, Steve. I would have liked to have participated more, but between my day job and the magazine, I have little time for this.
If you want a refund, please write the ACS at orders(at)chesterton.org.
There is very little, if any difference in the two parties. Many people choose not to vote for either one as voting for a Demorcrat or Republican validates the farce being foisted upon us. Obama won, and that speaks volumes for how pathethic the Republican party has become. Rommey was a Democrat running as a Republican.
He ran in the primary promising to “repeal Obama care”; then when he got the nomination, he said: “I”m not going to repeal it, I’m going to change it!”