Defining Change Now That So Many Have Voted For It

Change “substitution of one thing for another; succession of one thing in place of another”  –Oxford English Dictionary

To Put the Change Upon “to deceive, mislead (a person); to make things appear to (him) other than they are.”

–Oxford English Dictionary

In a fit of post-election euphoria many Americans celebrated and shed tears of joy believing that they were witnessing a new era of political change. If change simply means a Democratic regime replacing a Republican regime then we will have change in January. Indeed an African-American President is an important an exciting change in the United States. However, I believe that the change message the Obama campaign shouted implied more than a mere exchange of governing parties. He is supposed to be an outsider who is going to change they way things are done, and his administration will end our financial crisis, rehabilitate the international reputation of the United States, end the war, invest in education, end our dependence of foreign oil, and bring civility and fairness back to American governance. These are lofty and laudable goals for our President-elect, that could make most Americans happy.

Then I saw the names the Obama camp started releasing as possible candidates for cabinet positions and his new Chief of Staff and thought of the lesser known and obsolete definition of change “to put the change on” meaning mislead. While I did not expect the Obama camp to be as green as to appoint all neophytes, I did expect to see some new blood. Imagine my disappointment to see a Clinton All-Star team coming back to the White House to make a return appearance. So much for change.

Obama’s most blatant violation has to be his VP, Joe Biden. Joe Biden is NOT an agent of change in any way. He has been in Washington since 1973. For God sakes his career in Congress is older than me. I point out to my students that you can see him in the opening credits of the movie Miracle demonstrating the gas rationing by license plate idea. Biden has been too involved in federal politics for too long and I saw him as a serious liability for Obama during the campaign. I understand why Biden was the choice (experience, foreign policy, defense) but every time Biden opens his mouth, trouble seems to come out of it. Whether plagiarizing papers or possibly speeches (I believe Biden did attribute his speech in question. Good job MEDIA MATTERS), perpetuating a horrible stereotype of Indians and then seriously stating “I’M NOT JOKING,” or calling Obama the “first mainstream,” “clean” and “articulate.” Whatever was he implying?

Rahm Emanuel will certainly be a voice for change and civility so long as he does not have a steak knife handy. I mean seriously, does he think he’s a political equivalent of Al Capone? Does he know that Capone may have been a model badass, but he was a criminal whose badassery led him down the dark path? I’m sure he does, but he does not care. He’s from Chicago, and he’s doing things (imagine Sean Connery saying this) “the Chicago way.” I mean it is such a refreshing change to see a career politician who wants you to know that he can fight dirty who was a major part of the 1992 Clinton campaign who also helped bring us NAFTA. Indeed change is nigh. I ‘m even certain that Obama’s gaggle of NAFTA supporters will do nothing but strike confidence into the hearts of all of his union supporters who watched other good union jobs get shipped to Mexico or to China during the Clinton years. Of course I’m being too harsh on Rahm Emanuel; he is not a career politician. He also held a position on the board at Freddie Mac when it was rife with scandal.

It now seems that another key agent for change will be Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Of course Hillary is still singing the message of change more than the Scorpions did on their Winds of Change world tour. I can’t blame her. She saw her husband take the Oval Office on that message. She used that as her message running for the Senate. However, when she started her Presidential bid using the message of “change” you knew she was at the delusional stage. How does someone who has been in D.C. since January 1993 call herself an agent of change? She was well ensconced in national politics and had been for some years. It’s not as if Hillary Clinton is even a voice of major opposition as much as she would like you to think that. What are the key problems of the Bush administration that led voters to demand change? The WAR? Yes. She voted for it, and tried to talk like a bit of a hawk during the primaries to make sure people knew she was tough. The ECONOMY? She fares better in this category having been a constant voice of opposition. She supported NAFTA, but then again did that really hurt the U.S.? I do think that many voters who supported Obama and the change campaign believe that it did. In any case Clinton’s role in an Obama administration is representative of sameness not change. I sometimes feel really bad for Hillary Clinton. She tries to make her marriage work with a serial cheater instead of just giving up (I think this does speak to her character. She takes her commitments very seriously), and the public pillories her for being a fool and “standing by her man.” On the other hand, when she attempted to ease public doubts about her ability to be tough by showing her “tough” side (being more hawkish than Obama), many people essentially label her as a shrill bitch. C’est la vie dans le Democratic Partie. Think Obama will have her pull double duty by helping with the healthcare plan?

Now we can also welcome Paul Volcker. Volcker is a distinguished economist who as fed chairman in the late 1970s and early 1980s helped end high interest rates in America. His policies as fed chair also led to massive unemployment and serious problems for farmers. Of course forget the farmers; they live in those insignificant states that all intelligent people avoid. I wonder why many are voting Republican now? In any case I believe Volcker is a man of good character and will serve as a good advisor to President Obama. I just don’t see much change here. 

Why does this bother me so much? Obama’s campaign resonated with many because it implied more than a mere shift of power from Republicans to Democrats. People were hopeful that an Obama presidency would be “outside of the box” and end the era of squabbling, gridlock, and special interests. For those who did believe that is how Obama defined change, I fear he has put the change upon you.