So many of us want change. We want things to be better. We all know what better means but not exactly what it looks like. Most of us are waiting on a feeling. Better is a comparison. Better isn’t concrete. Better isn’t objective. We just know it when we feel it. But can we recognize when better becomes better enough? Not really, because better is the consolation prize for not having a meaningful and measurable goal. It’s what you get when things aren’t as bad as they used to be but they’re still not satisfying.

If a pollster asked me if I was financially better off today than yesterday, I would have to give an answer based on my gut feelings because to give a real answer would take much longer than would seem reasonable to the moment. My gut feeling though would not be an accurate picture of my finances and their current stability or instability. If I was heavily invested in stocks but had just watched a bout of profit-taking amid volatile trading, I might be worried that it was a signifier of larger trends and my answer would be less positive. But, say that I was heavily invested in gold and the market volatility was causing gold to rise into record territory I might feel confident about my finances and answer in the affirmative. These responses would be tied to fluid circumstances that change at any moment. The answer as to whether I was better off than yesterday wouldn’t be quantifiable until today ended.

Another approach for change is needed. We need to define our better enough. We can’t keep using better as our litmus test. Better is a trap of increments. If I expect an employee to get to work on time by saying ” I expect you to do better about getting to work on time” will that accomplish it? It might, but probably not. If the employee gets to work on time one more day a year than their previous year they have done better. What do we use then? We can use numbers and data. We can attempt to rely on such things as GDP and crime rates. We can analyze and talk about the metrics of change until they become meaningless, or we can talk about what really makes people feel that change has occurred and that they have reached better enough. But we need to keep in mind that better enough will change once it’s reached.

We also need to remember that that better enough feeling must reach all segments of the population. I think this may be more possible on the macro level rather than if we try and focus on the micro level. In other words, it seems like more of a marketing issue. When a company attempts to find its perfect client, they aren’t looking for one, ideal person. They are instead looking for a group that shares similar traits, concerns and/or needs. If we were to attempt to create positive changes for people both in Appalachia as well as for people in the Coastal South, they would probably share quite a few concerns and challenges but would require very different solutions. Let’s say that since home repairs can be extremely expensive and the wages in both of these areas are generally low, then having a home in good repair has a good chance of being an area where if the problems are solved then that would be a big step towards better enough. The solution might be one about better pay, access to resources, or training for trades but it would need to be tailored for the area.

But the solution is not just tied to their physical reality. It’s also tied to what they hear and see. Media, of all flavors, has been focusing on the lifestyles of the rich and famous for centuries before the show of that name came about. It has both good and bad sides to it. I am sure that the public’s use of running water, electricity, and indoor plumbing, along with their pursuit of literacy, and better health have all benefited from such comparisons. But alongside those benefits there were also negatives. The excesses that the rich employ in their daily lives can become something that haunts those that don’t live in the same level of luxury. This disparity has been one of the most energetic catalysts for change throughout history. When better enough for most doesn’t bear any resemblance to the better enough of the rich then better enough is no longer attainable and the public will be unable to see smaller changes that better their lives as having any value.

One of things that can help people make their way to better enough, is an open door. When we pick and choose who can step up a ladder, or who can get help making their dream come true, we create unnecessary problems for society as a whole. The citizen who is angry because they believe an immigrant got a business loan when they couldn’t doesn’t care about the immigrant getting a loan they care that they needed one and couldn’t get one. The voter that is angry about someone getting free health care isn’t angry about the free healthcare, they’re angry because their own healthcare is insufficient and too expensive. Most people who are upset about inequality are upset about how it affects them. So if we open the doors to all there’s a better chance that more people will find their better enough than if we pick and choose who we believe is the most deserving.

Change is rarely easy. Societal change is even more challenging. But the alternative is usually destructive change. I am not a proponent for a redux of “le règne de la terreur”. Healthy change is possible but it has to benefit as many as possible and be something that can last beyond an election cycle.