2008 Woodie Awards
'Lose' change
Change is the new buzzword, but are presidential candidates serious when they say it (and it's often) or just telling voters what they want to hear?
by Derek Wehrwein
Issue date: 1/17/08
Section: Voices
I am all for change. Real change. In fact, possibly no one wants change as badly as I do.
My desire for change, however, is being severely tested by politicians who seemingly can't stop using the word "change."
"Change" is the buzzword of the 2008 election, and presidential candidates are having a grand time seeing who can use the word the most amount of times and in the nerdiest ways (winner of the latter is the Clintons, who coined the dreadful phrase "agent of change").
Frankly, it's all Barack Obama's fault.
It was Obama who made his campaign slogan "Change we can believe in" and who frequently employs the theme of "change" in his stump speeches. When it became clear that Obama's message of change was connecting so well with people it endangered Hillary Clinton's frontrunner status, the former first lady began fashioning herself as the candidate of change.
Soon she and hubby Bill were out on the campaign trail, building up Hillary as an "agent of change" and making it clear - in case anyone had forgotten - that Clinton has been fighting for change for 35 years. John Edwards jumped on the "change" bandwagon as well, letting everyone know he was for "real change" (as opposed to fake change, apparently) and that he would fight for "change" if elected president.
All that talk of change came to a head at the ABC/Facebook Democratic debate earlier this month in New Hampshire. Chris Matthews provided the frightening statistics the following day on "Hardball": the four Democratic candidates used the word "change" a combined 103 times, including one 65-second span in which Hillary found a way to use the word "change" 10 times. "Making change is not about what you believe," declared Hillary, who explained she wanted to "make change" and had already "made change."
Columnist Charles Krauthammer may have put it best when describing the current state of the Democratic presidential race. "What passes for substance," he recently wrote, "is an absurd contest of hopeful change (Obama) vs. experienced change (Clinton) vs. angry change (John Edwards playing Hugo Chavez in English)."
Krauthammer failed to mention, however, that the Republican presidential race has become equally as absurd on "change." Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has worked the "change" theme into recent Republican debates and stump speeches, and John McCain and Rudy Giuliani have also started mentioning Americans' desire for "change" in debate answers. These candidates' attempts to harness the "change" theme is almost laughable, since they're essentially advocating the status quo on most issues.
I'm sure all the candidates talking about "change" really do believe in change - the kind of change that means they get to move their furniture into the White House. There is certainly a place for the discussion of "change" in politics, as well. But forgive me for being suspicious of candidates who seem to rely a little too heavily on what is ultimately a meaningless buzzword. Forgive me for also being suspicious of this sudden rush by so many candidates to jump on the "change" bandwagon. Are they really being sincere and are the policies they propose really change for the better, or are they merely talking about change because they think that's what voters want to hear?
The sudden rush suggests it's likely the latter. And that's not real change. That's politics as usual.
Derek Wehrwein is the Reporter variety editor. Sick of hearing "change," Derek suggests the candidates instead use "metamorphose" or "transmogrify."
My desire for change, however, is being severely tested by politicians who seemingly can't stop using the word "change."
"Change" is the buzzword of the 2008 election, and presidential candidates are having a grand time seeing who can use the word the most amount of times and in the nerdiest ways (winner of the latter is the Clintons, who coined the dreadful phrase "agent of change").
Frankly, it's all Barack Obama's fault.
It was Obama who made his campaign slogan "Change we can believe in" and who frequently employs the theme of "change" in his stump speeches. When it became clear that Obama's message of change was connecting so well with people it endangered Hillary Clinton's frontrunner status, the former first lady began fashioning herself as the candidate of change.
Soon she and hubby Bill were out on the campaign trail, building up Hillary as an "agent of change" and making it clear - in case anyone had forgotten - that Clinton has been fighting for change for 35 years. John Edwards jumped on the "change" bandwagon as well, letting everyone know he was for "real change" (as opposed to fake change, apparently) and that he would fight for "change" if elected president.
All that talk of change came to a head at the ABC/Facebook Democratic debate earlier this month in New Hampshire. Chris Matthews provided the frightening statistics the following day on "Hardball": the four Democratic candidates used the word "change" a combined 103 times, including one 65-second span in which Hillary found a way to use the word "change" 10 times. "Making change is not about what you believe," declared Hillary, who explained she wanted to "make change" and had already "made change."
Columnist Charles Krauthammer may have put it best when describing the current state of the Democratic presidential race. "What passes for substance," he recently wrote, "is an absurd contest of hopeful change (Obama) vs. experienced change (Clinton) vs. angry change (John Edwards playing Hugo Chavez in English)."
Krauthammer failed to mention, however, that the Republican presidential race has become equally as absurd on "change." Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has worked the "change" theme into recent Republican debates and stump speeches, and John McCain and Rudy Giuliani have also started mentioning Americans' desire for "change" in debate answers. These candidates' attempts to harness the "change" theme is almost laughable, since they're essentially advocating the status quo on most issues.
I'm sure all the candidates talking about "change" really do believe in change - the kind of change that means they get to move their furniture into the White House. There is certainly a place for the discussion of "change" in politics, as well. But forgive me for being suspicious of candidates who seem to rely a little too heavily on what is ultimately a meaningless buzzword. Forgive me for also being suspicious of this sudden rush by so many candidates to jump on the "change" bandwagon. Are they really being sincere and are the policies they propose really change for the better, or are they merely talking about change because they think that's what voters want to hear?
The sudden rush suggests it's likely the latter. And that's not real change. That's politics as usual.
Derek Wehrwein is the Reporter variety editor. Sick of hearing "change," Derek suggests the candidates instead use "metamorphose" or "transmogrify."
Be the first to comment on this story