So the pundits have spoken and the consensus has emerged – the 2008 election is shaping up to be all about "change" -- "change" after 8 years of George Bush. The win by Obama over Clinton shows that Americans want "change" over "experience." (Never mind that Clinton hardly has any useful experience – in the debate last night, when she discussed how she would boss the Joint Chiefs of Staff around, you could see in her eyes that she wasn’t even making the sale to herself.)
Yes, the pundits have informed us, we all want change – on both sides of the political divide. The Iowa win by Huckabee – the candidate so obviously opposed by the Republican establishment – shows that even Republican voters want change.
(Continued after the flip)
The narrative is so obvious and compelling that the candidates themselves were running with it in their debates – Huckabee lumping himself with Obama as the two change candidates, and Edwards insisting that he’s for change too! (You know, unlike Clinton.)
To be sure, there are other themes being endlessly repeated – for instance, the voters also want "outsiders" not "Washington insiders." I guess that tried-and-true strategy of running as a Washington insider just doesn’t work like it did back in the election of... well, I’m sure it must have worked at some point. (Even incumbents run against Washington - I recall, in particular, incumbent Ronald Reagan taking Mondale's appeal for change in 1984 and wrapping it around his neck with the battle cry of "We are the change!")
We also have, on the Dem side, the fascinating debate about whether "change" really comes from hoping or fighting or working.
But this is quibbling. The results show the election is shaping up to be mainly about change.
I have just one question:
It is?
Is that really what the election's about?
Change is all we need?
Any old change will do?
To put it simply, any master narrative that comfortably includes Mike Huckabee as a change candidate™, and at the same time comfortably excludes Hillary Clinton as a change candidate™, is clearly warped, and likely problematic down the road.
Personally, I don’t want change. I want universal healthcare.
I don’t want change. I want a strategic withdrawal from Iraq.
Strong majorities agree with me. They don’t agree with change candidate™ Mike Huckabee – who probably couldn’t even find Iraq on a map.
(By the way, do not laugh the Huckster off. He’s no dumber than Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush – both of whom went on to be inaugurated – and he has a better stage presence than any of his rival con-men in the current go-round. Any time a candidate this flawed becomes a contender for the Presidency is a sad and dangerous day for our country.)
Now Obama supporters would probably argue that what everyone really means with their "change" votes is that we need to change the way business gets done in Washington.
Point taken. It makes sense. And I think this is a big part of the "change" voters sought when they voted for Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, who emphasized similar claims in their campaigns.
(I thought Obama crushed his rivals in the debate last night, by the way, and would now bet on him to take New Hampshire.)
But something to ponder: Isn’t building a groundswell behind the proposition that our foremost objective should be "to change the way business in Washington gets done" kind of a stage cue for Mike Bloomberg to enter the race and try to snatch the baton?