Granted, he's talking about national issues and the presidential race and, while I take issue with application of the point to the current presidential administration, I must agree that his position/opinion is certainly applicable to our city and county.
"People resist significant change. In Pittsburgh, we have voted slate after slate of Democrats into office since the 1930s as the city sank from the pre-eminent, wealthy position it had in the nation to the current, sad spot of the fifth poorest of America's larger cities. It is remarkable that the clear evidence that this city's leadership for 70 years has not been able to reverse our slide has not led to a change in political leadership.
That is not to say that the Republicans have put forward an inspired plan.
But continuing to take the same action in the hope that the next time it will have a different outcome is comparable to the theory that chickens peck the ground because they think this is what causes the yard to be scattered with feed."
The sad part is that such an opinion hasn't been targeted to our local elected officials, even when the situations are the same. I don't follow Pittsburgh politics, so I don't know if their paper has endorsed a complete change of political leadership. I know The Blade hasn't done so - although on occasion they seem to think that changing the faces, bringing in 'fresh, new, young' people equates to a change in political philosophy.
My hope is that voters will eventually realize what so many of us already know: that doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results, is perpetuating the problem - not solving it.