"Change" isn't always a good thing. It seems to me that the present crisis may have produced a willingness among many people in America to go along with changes that are likely to be disastrous.

It was an appetite for change arising out of social and economic cruises that gave the world Thatcher, Mussolini, Hitler...(I'm not equating them, no call for anyone to accuse me of doing that.)

"Change" is a completely neutral word. All too often it gets used as if the word always implied change for the good. Maybe it's getting to the stage where it's taking on the same loaded meaning as the word "reform", which also in itself should carry a completely neutral meaning. Perhaps we should drop it, in the political context, and use the term "alterations" instead.