Games People Play

What Does “Change” Mean in this Presidential Election?

Most media outlets act completely clueless about it. It’s a surefire rallying point in an election that will oust the incredibly unpopular President “Dub-yuh”; the most constant theme in this presidential primary run has been the theme of “change.” Republican Mitt Romney tried to hitch his wagons to the term in his failed Whitehouse bid, as has Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton occasionally. And it all began with on the more successful proponent of change, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama. Commenting on Obama’s message, CNN contributor Leslie Sanchez spouts the same talking point heard throughout all media channels: “voters are wondering, as are independents and even some Republicans, what all this talk about ‘change’ really means.” Obviously anyone elected will be a change from George W. Bush to some extent; however, pundits have thus far chosen to follow the Clinton tact of mocking the term as an empty word rather than commenting on the pervasive message that Obama has used to back up his words.
With Obama, change will mean a massive reduction in the influence of big money lobbyists in Washington. He has already passed a plan in the senate to open up the federal spending record for public scrutiny. It has been pointed out that all three of the major remaing campaigns include lobbyists in their advisory team, but Obama’s only lobbyist represents ecology, not big business. In the Clinton and McCain camps lobbyists can be found who represent some of the largest cell phone companies in the world, big business at its boomingest. McCain faces charges in the national media this week of an unseemly relationship with a special interest lobbyist and has been caught flatfooted, saying, “I do not intend to discuss it further.”
The most vocal advocate of “change” remaining on the campaign trail is the original one, Barack Obama. The change he prescribes is a move away from the corruption that has for too long been accepted as an unavoidable presence in Washington. Obama seeks to reach out to any politician whose interests still lie in representing the people by whom they are elected and whom they are intended to represent. Keeping the high road, he has avoided pointing out directly the perjury, perhaps the highest form of corruption, committed by former President Bill Clinton. He has not pounced on the news of McCain’s lobbyist relations either. Obama has only pointed out his own good record, along with self-effacing admissions of anything in his past that he might be embarrassed of. That is the fresh face that Obama’s “change” stands for, and it will extend into every corner of the political map. It allows him to work comfortably and openly with Republicans, Independents, and Democrats. It will allow him to meet with foreign leaders with whom he strongly disagrees as well, and perhaps for a “change” those negotiations will accomplish something for America and the world.
The United States has been under the influence of big money special interests for too long, which has led to an increase in poverty and unemployment, a lack of concern for domestic workers, unchecked assaults on the environment, predatory lending, and an unstable economy. The “change” America needs is not amorphous and indescribable. It is fundamental; it is a change that will have an impact on every major issue facing America today from the bottom up. Obama’s opponents have created a talking point of emptiness: “What does change mean?” But the question is itself empty. It seems that every time Obama opens his mouth he is telling us what it means. Anyone who does not know has not been trying to find out at all.

Source:
Sanchez, Leslie. “Commentary: Latino voters want a better idea of 'change'.” CNNPolitics.com. .