The word “Change” has become the paradigm from both parties in these waning weeks of the primary season. Frankly, barring certain instances, the word has become little more than a catch phrase, or, a springboard for a troubled candidate to leap back on to the bandwagon.
This is clearly nothing new. Rather, it is commonplace in the American political cycle. The difference here is that our nation, at this point, is in the gravest danger it has been in quite some time. However, because of advancements in global communication, and the tragic abandonment of media diversity, the simplification of highly complex issues worthy of deeper analysis by the voting public into one-to-three word phrases has become a much more potent norm. It seems that the already limited attention span of the typical American has become even shorter, raising the trend of tactical branding of popular summarizations, such as, “change,” which potentially marginalizes the just anger of the American citizen by consolidating the gamut of countless frustrations into a single item: immeasurably more manageable for candidates who choose to cling to a popular catch phrase (“Change.”)
Meanwhile, status quo has gained enormous power over the past 7 years. The office of the President of the United States has traversed a great distance away from its Constitutional intention. The Congress is steeped in corruption and has succumbed to the whims of a rogue Administration time and again to serve its institutional id despite its Constitutional intent. The Judiciary has been completely marginalized and is subverted at every turn. Every single government agency in America has been contaminated by politicization, which has caused sustained misery and thousands of deaths across the nation.
Healthcare, fuel, and education prices Practically every single element of American life has been placed out of reach due to skyrocketing prices and lower wages. As a result, usury is rampant as corporations and financiers explore the fiscal benefits of developing the contemporary version of slavery in America.
Most despicably of all, the Administration has perpetuated its occupation of Iraq from comfortable quarters while perpetually politicizing, under funding, and blatantly, criminally, abusing the men and women in uniform charged to fulfill their delusional whims.
Clearly, the state our nation is in at this point holds an encyclopedic array of specific items we must demand to become adherent to the mere mention of the word, “change.” Unlike lesser situations in calmer times, those who run on a platform of change must therefore have a clear, tangible, and microscopically detailed definition for the word and stand at the ready to lengthily pontificate its meaning and implementation should he or she be elected President. The alternative, and, in my opinion, what is actually taking place with the majority of candidates is the molding of the word, “Change” into a bright, but worthless buzz word, holding absolutely no meaning or promised intention beyond its ability as a brand to propel a candidate into office. If the word continues to be used broadly, and without specific classification of its use, it will become synonymous with brands like Nike, or Prada, which profit from saturation of inferior products and knock-offs as the brand has been selected by society to supersede any weighing of the tangible quality of the specific product that holds the brand.
“Change” should represent a well-defined set of parameters. Change should inspire crucial and specific goals in the best interest of the American people:
(In no specific order except for the first:)
• The end of the United States occupation of Iraq
• Restoration of the Constitution of the United States
• Institutional abolition of political corporatization
• Retroactive prosecution of war criminals
• Implementation of universal healthcare
• The acknowledgement and preservation of constitutional parity for Gay Americans
• Abandonment of preemptive military policies
• Mandated fiscal, medical, and institutional support for the United States Soldier
• Restoration of American global humanitarianism
• Abolition of poverty
(et. al.)
When uttered, “change” should clearly represent the contents of a package rather than the package, itself. It should have meaning and be considered a promise of things to come should its holder become the nominee. Upon hearing the word, “change” from any candidate; we should have the instant ability to cite the individual’s specific definition(s) for the word, and, more importantly, the candidate’s acknowledgement of the mandate placed upon him or her to implement his or her specific definitions as policy. The absence of a candidate’s supporting definition for the word should clearly indicate his or her deliberate abuse of the word for marketing purposes and therefore reveal his or her unworthiness of becoming the nominee, or the President of the United States, for that matter.
Should your candidate evoke the word, “change,” ask yourself whether or not he or she is summarizing an outline, or if the word is meaningless beyond its brand. Put your candidate’s use of the word in context with the rest of his or her platform. Is it linked to specific goals or policies? If it isn’t, ponder whether or not “change” has become your candidate’s “9/11;” a popular brand, printed on an empty box.
EDIT: Sorry for the extra "R" in Barack Obama. I can't edit it out.
::::::