Attempts to change the people are as much part of history as embrace of the status quo
...the people
Had squandered the confidence of the government
And could only win it back
By redoubled work.
Would it not in that case
Be simpler for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
— Die Losung (The Solution), Bertolt Brecht, 1953
Brecht, of course, was mocking the Stalinist government of East Germany, against which the people had staged an uprising in 1953, only for it to be crushed. However, there is a strong case for stripping Brecht's solution of installing a new people of all irony, and adopting it as the primary project of redemption around the world, given the kinds of leaders who get elected.
Does this sound frivolous? Or worse, elitist? Instead of moulding yourself to find acceptance among the people who had rejected you, isn't it pure conceit to hope to change them, rather than change yourself?
Let us understand, at the outset, that people change, and change drastically. And that attempts to change the people are as much part of history as embrace of the status quo.
Emergence of religions, formation of new ones from old faiths, social reform movements, political movements to gain universal adult franchise — and to get people to understand that universal adult franchise covers women, and not just men — agitations and runs-in with the powers that be to get voting rights for people who had been excluded, the movement to end apartheid in South Africa, the Me-Too movement, the ongoing campaign to sensitise people, companies and governments on the imperatives of climate
