One of the (long-since rendered meaningless) buzzwords we’ll be forced-fed this campaign year will be “change”. Every four years, someone (usually several candidates) try to present themselves as the candidate of change. Well, while that certainly sounds appealing, I find myself wondering just what sort of change we’re talking about here? Not only that, how will anything that they do be substantially different than any of the other candidates? I long ago endorsed Barack Obama, and I do believe that his candidacy represents a change in the status quo (from glib, well-fed White men). Still, not even I can really tell you what “change” represents in the context of his campaign. Yes, he says he wants to change the business of doing business in Washington, but realistically, how much difference can the man at the top of the iceberg make?
If a candidate truly wanted to make a change, he’d make like Jesus and chase the money-changers out of the temple. It’s going to take just that sort of table-upsetting passion to change a Washington political culture inebriated from top to botton by money and power. Of course, in Washington, the two are inextricably linked. Where one is found, the other can’t be far behind.
Sadly, one person, no matter how charismatic or idealistic, lacks the power (never mind the ability) to change a political culture that has been feeding on the mother’s milk of politics for far too long. Even though we’d like to think otherwise, a President simply doesn’t wield that sort of power and authority. Sure, a President can set a tone. He (or she) can demand that the way business is done in Washington change, and processes can be put into motion to enable some of the changes to eventually become a reality. At this point, though, there are far too many people far too invested in maintaining the status quo ante for any meaningful reforms to happen overnight. A President may want change; a President may even DEMAND change…but a President’s ability to actually effect meaningful change is decidedly limited.
With that in mind, this alleged “debate” about who’s the most legitimate candidate of change is little more than so much mental masturbation. Tastes Great!! Less Filling!! Whatever….
Where’s the Beef??
