Change! It’s the buzzword of the season.
Suddenly, everyone who’s running for president is for “change.” John Edwards has been talking about it for months. Then Barack Obama began his surge. My Illinois senator did well in Iowa. And he had picked up a huge amount of buzz and momentum by the eve of the first primary in New Hampshire. Even Hillary Clinton has picked up the "change" mantle. Invoking it to death in last Saturday night's debate. And before she (barely) won the New Hampshire primary. The message that got across was clear and decisive. People are sick to death of the status quo; they want “change.” Even in Iowa. Even the Republicans are talking the “change” talk — if not walking the walk.
What exactly does that mean: “change?” Each presidential candidate will have to (sooner or later) define that term for the voters. Because it is a relative term that can mean many different things to many different people.
Change can be virtually invisible or it can be epic. The changes that George Bush effected were remarkable for their breadth – certainly in terms of the Constitution (separation of powers and due process—to name only two areas). He made those changes by fiat and (when legislation was required) by instilling fear both in the American public and an acquiescent Congress, terrified of being labeled either unpatriotic or unconcerned with security. So not all change is good, and lot of one’s perspective depends upon what side of the issue you happen to be.
Historically, policy change has mostly occurred incrementally. A compromise here; a deal there; change is made; change retreats. It is the way of our republic. Politicians, interested in protecting their electability tend to be allergic to boldness. Self-interest often outweighs public interest and even the most well-intentioned politicians are, after all, politicians in the business of getting re-elected. As such they are often too eager to trade one vote for another compromise on one issue to gain on another. Mavericks who put principle before self-interest exist in Washington, but tend to be a rare breed: Russ Feingold, the late Paul Wellstone. And often enough, that has been adequate. Like I said: incremental change. Over time, over years, over sessions in Congress, over decades.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - howard bowen
What's the big idea; change? America is structured on change. New clothes fashion every season. New cars every year. New architectural change, constantly. Changes in technology. If the American people are so hipped-up with being programed with the notion of change, maybe now is a good time to look at the facts and truth about the greatest administration to occupy the White House in decades. Want to know why? Look in your King James Holy Bible, and live that way. And be very afraid of the pork barrel candidates who are up for scrutiny this election. Every one of them is a greedy self glorifying narcisist. It's shameful to see that the entire roster this election are a bunch of parrots, especially considering the fact that the lionshare of American women certainly must be in favor of giving the pants of our flipant society back to the men. And if they are not, they will be sorry for it later. We all will be sorry when the male population in America continues to contort themselves into a bunch of womanizing cunts.
2 - Barbara Barnett
I won't debate you about the merits of this administration, Howard, but I think "change" is being used to mean "change of direction."
Personally, I don't read the King James Bible, preferring to read the Bible in the original Hebrew. And I agree that much of what one needs to live an ethical life can be found therein. But I seem to recall something about not putting stumbling blocks in front of the blind; stewarding the care of the earth; using it, but steadfastly refusing to exploit and destroy it; a word or two justice and pursuing it. Quite a bit about business ethics, too, as I recall. If only people would remember those sections (found somewhere in the middle of the book of Exodus for one very rich chapter or two). Oh yeah, and the thing about a fetus being a "pursuer" of the mother until its head apears suggesting that the mental and physical well-being of the mother takes precedence over the not-quite-yet life dwelling in her womb. Pardon the rant.
I actually do resent your implications about women. If you can't be civil...
3 - Maurice
"...result of this too-easy marriage of government and business has resulted in energy and oil companies creating energy and environmental policy..."
Please provide an example of policy that can be directly connected to an energy/oil company.
If it were true we would be drilling in ANWR.
4 - Barbara Barnett
would it be clearer to say "through their consitutent industry organizations"? Or "through their lobbyists" who have the strongest of allies in this administration?
5 - Maurice
It would be clearer if you would NAME THE POLICY.
I can name a policy for you that clearly was enacted because of lobbying: Prescription drug reimbursement.
6 - handyguy
Maurice, the Bush administration has been unable to push Arctic drilling through Congress. But it's not as though they haven't tried.
The Bush administration's pro-business tendencies aren't all bad - but they are ideologically based and inflexible. Conversely, the Dem candidates are making populist noises during their primaries, but in the real world a Dem administration would be cautious in taking strong anti-business stands.
The [first] Clinton administration is not usually spoken of as some awful hell for business, except by the most ideological of critics. The 90s were a pretty good time to be in business in the US.
But any Dem president would definitely provide a change from Bush, certainly including H R Clinton.
7 - Maurice
I merely quoted the author and asked for a point of reference. I even provided an example.
It appears the author is unable to name a policy.
8 - Barbara Barnett
Maurice, the author is at work and is typing on a blackberry. I will reply to your question with greater specificity when I have a moment. There are several very good examples. Back to you later today.
(the author)
9 - Barbara Barnett
One need only remember the Cheney Energy task force which in very large part was written by Energy companies. I direct you to the following website (Natural Resources Defense Council), which has photocopies of task force documents and the evidence of undue influence of the energy companies in writing energy policy.
NRDC review of the Cheney Energy Task force documents
10 - Alexandria
howard bowen, I'm curious about this:
"We all will be sorry when the male population in America continues to contort themselves into a bunch of womanizing cunts."
Would someone explain?
11 - Dr Dreadful
Alexandria, Howard is a raving nutcase who seldom makes any sense. I wouldn't worry about it.
12 - Baritone
Howard,
I'm just curious exactly where in the King James Bible you found the phrase "a bunch of womanizing cunts?" It doesn't ring a bell.
Counter to both the author and Howard, I don't need any "bible" in whatever language to find ethical guidance. But to consider the Bush administration as anything but a disastrous train wreck is anathema to reality.
As to Edwards candidacy: I would likely vote for him over any Republican candidate. However, I prefer either Clinton or Obama in no particular order. Edwards is prone to wear his faith on his sleeve which I find offensive.
Babara, that you qualified Clinton's NH win as barely is surprising given the pre-primary polling figures. However, I don't believe that she overcame a 15 point deficit. I believe that the polling results were simply wrong.
Dave Nalle has made his charge that Obama's loss was likely due to the closet racism of NH voters. I don't agree. Certainly race was no doubt a factor with some voters. It always will be, wherever you go. But I don't believe it was a "deciding" factor.
Baritone
13 - Barbara Barnett
Baritone, wherever ethics come from, as long as they're...ethical...is fine by me. This administration for all of its Bible thumping has had few. Neither have several of their more "religious" (and I'm using the word advisedly) allies in Congress.
I agree that the polling results were wrong. And I think that's a good slap down for the prevailing punditry that they got it so wrong.
I think Edwards' on-his-sleeve faith wearing is probably somewhat cultural. It doesn't bother me as long as he keeps God and Government separate. Edwards has gone through alot personally (and his wife) and if his faith keeps him going, great. Now, Huckabee, for all of his "aw shucks" charm and good humor...he really scares me. Because I have no doubt that he will bring God and government much closer together than the founders intended (which was, as I recall, separate.)
14 - Baritone
Barbara,
I fear that both Huckabee and Ron Paul are of the same ilk in that regard. I visited Huckabee's WEB site. Right from the top he states that his faith directs his life. If it's possible, a Huckabee White House could be even more "faith based" than Bushes. Huckabee is rather disarming. He has a folksy charm that probably belies a very determined candidate. Evangelical ministers are not known for their laid back nature. Nor are presidential candidates.
B-tone
15 - Maurice
Barbara,
with all due respect and great restraint I have to point out that the link you provided is not policy. No policies were enacted or changed. No new laws were created. No doubt you think I am belaboring this point. The problem is people believe things if they are repeated enough times. Many people believe laws have been changed to provide some imaginary advantage for oil companies. Your statement above tells me you are one of those people.
16 - Nathan Smythe
I have been enoying BlogCritics since I recently stumbled upon it, but this is my first comment.
Although we may have various interpretations over what "Change" means to the American people, and we have different opinions about what each candidate means when they speak of change, I found this article interesting because "change," I think we can all admit, DOES seem to be the word of the week. Yes, it's been the word of the year, too, but I certainly hadn't noticed Hillary Clinton using "change" so much until Obama won Iowa. I think she used "change" more in the two days after than than she had in two months.
I think some candidates are sincere when they want change, but I think it's an easy, crutch-word to say. It's also a word that you don't hear the news media analyze much. They rarely examine "Now what does he mean by 'change.' What would change really entail?" In fact, I don't know if any of you have seen the new documentary "The World Without US" (it has nothing to do with the book "The World Without Us" by Alan Weisman), but I thought of it when I read this article because the whole premise was analyzing what "change" really means when a candidate actually DOES it.
You mentioned in your article "Any presidential candidate who talks of change in any of those policy areas will have to explain how he or she is going to accomplish it." This film does an interesting scenario of that. It starts off with a fictional "Turner for President" ad where Turner promises change and to withdraw most of our troops from the world and focus on domestic issues. Then it goes on to analyze what that means to us and to the world. It was more complicated than you expect at first, but I found it well-researched and entertaining.
If you haven't heard of it, I think that's because it was made by people who don't have as much money and publicity as other fimmakers, like Michael Moore. While not being made with as large of a budget, I thought it was better researched and better structured than some of Moore's films. (I got the documentary on Amazon, but you can also see trailers for the film at it's website www.theworldwithoutUS.com)
By the way, this forum interested me because I like how the authors, like Barbara here, comment back -- that's something I don't see on many political blogs. By the way, as for your choice, I think Edwards is not doing as well in the results BECAUSE he is not accepting lobbyist money, and I wish more candidates would do what he is doing, and not accept it. Maybe without the lobbyist money, we'd know what more of these candidates actually think ....
17 - Dave Nalle
One need only remember the Cheney Energy task force which in very large part was written by Energy companies.
I marvel at the mindset which thinks that there's something wrong with consulting with the companies producing the nation's energy when trying to set a policy for government management of those very resources.
Who should the government talk to about energy issues, fast food restaurant managers?
BTW, Cheney also met with representatives of consumer groups and environmental groups. The NRDC was even invited, though they chose not to attend. Did that mean they had undue influence as well?
Dave
18 - Barbara Barnett
I think some candidates are sincere when they want change, but I think it's an easy, crutch-word to say. It's also a word that you don't hear the news media analyze much. They rarely examine "Now what does he mean by 'change.' What would change really entail?" In fact, I don't know if any of you have seen the new documentary "The World Without US" (it has nothing to do with the book "The World Without Us" by Alan Weisman), but I thought of it when I read this article because the whole premise was analyzing what "change" really means when a candidate actually DOES it.
Thank you, Nathan for your comments and kind words. I have not seen the documentary you mentioned. But I will be sure to watch it.
I'm always suspicious when politicians use easy and subjective words like "change." And I'm not surprised that the media have simply latched onto the "message" without learning more about the "massage" behind it.
I agree that Edwards has been at a disadvantage because of the terms he set for his campaign.
Dave--(Dave, I know you think that anyone who supports Edwards is insane ;) ) But to address your comment: Of course there is nothing wrong with getting the input of all interest groups, including those that represent big business, and as I said in my article, that's the way policy has always formulated, in one way or another. But business interests have had a particularly unequal seat at this administration's policy making table. And the (whether direct or indirect) result of this sort of lopsidedness results in a long-term denial, for one example, of the human impact on global warming.
Yes, get the input of Big Oil; get the expertise of the Energy conglomerates, but temper their influence with REAL, and UTILIZED input from other, less self-interested, parties.
19 - Baronius
"But business interests have had a particularly unequal seat at this administration's policy making table." Again, Barbara, that statement doesn't seem founded on anything.
20 - Dave Nalle
But business interests have had a particularly unequal seat at this administration's policy making table.
It's a Republican administration. What did you expect? And what's wrong with that? Businesses represent the interests of their stockholders and workers as much as elected representatives do in many ways. Business deserves a seat at the table. I would have agreed with many of the founding fathers in trying to find a way to give the business community direct representation in congress.
And the (whether direct or indirect) result of this sort of lopsidedness results in a long-term denial, for one example, of the human impact on global warming.
Which remains an unproven and likely unprovable theory which thousands of scientists dispute despite losing their jobs and suffering persecution as a result.
Yes, get the input of Big Oil; get the expertise of the Energy conglomerates, but temper their influence with REAL, and UTILIZED input from other, less self-interested, parties.
As I mentioned earlier, Cheney also got input from 13 consumer groups and environmental groups. You can read my article on the subject for the details. BTW, I was incorrect in my earlier statement. Cheney's staff actually met with representatives of the NRDC four times in the process, more than any other single group.
Dave
21 - Maurice
Dave,
nobody is going to check out your article so I am going to quote what I think is the most pertinent part:
The energy bill is far from being nothing but a big wet kiss for Big Oil as it has been accused of being. It may include a lot of support for building new refineries and expanding drilling and improving efficiency of oil production, but it also includes more money and support than any previous legislation for alternative fuels, renewable energy and energy research. This includes a $3400 consumer tax credit for buying a hybrid vehicle, government loan guarantees for clean-energy projects and conversions, setting a higher standard for ethanol in gasoline, subsidies for wind and other alternative energy sources, support for wind- and wave-based power generating technology, new support for geothermal energy generation, new tax breaks for making homes more energy efficient, converting an enormous portion of the federal fleet to alternative fuel use, and lots of support for revitalizing the nuclear-power industry, including tax cuts, loans and security assistance. All told the bill provides over $16 billion in tax incentives for alternative energy programs. Not only is it not unreasonably pro-oil, it's the most powerful bill ever passed in support of other forms of energy.
(emphasis mine)
22 - Dave Nalle
Thanks for quoting it, Maurice, but it's clearly something which an awful lot of people would rather not hear. It doesn't fit with their preconceptions of the evil motives of the Bush administration.
Dave
23 - Clavos
"It doesn't fit with their preconceptions of the evil motives of the Bush administration."
...Not to mention those of the evil, predatory oil companies...
One thing I've always wondered:
So many people, here and in the MSM, as well as on other websites, rant and rave about the oil companies' "obscene profits," yet none of them ever mention the enormous amounts of money lining the pockets of the sheiks; nor do they ever acknowledge the fact that oil prices are actually set by them, NOT the oil companies.
24 - Dave Nalle
If my business had a profit margin as low as the oil industry I'd be back teaching college in no time.
Dave
25 - Zedd
Barbara,
I think that it was assumed from the start that the message of all of the candidates Dems and Republican would be Change.
The real change is from Bush and everything that supported the extent to which his administration was "successful".