In any election year, change has often been used as an appealing yet illusionary dividend.  We are asked to vote in a particular way or for a particular party in order to alter whatever may be the status quo.  But is this a genuine goal?  Does change have a valid definition in an election campaign?  Clearly there is always a desire to alter the status quo, independent of whatever status the targets of these promulgations possess.  For the well-off, change may be linked to political fervor, religious beliefs, business profits, tax reform, etc.  For the not-so-well-off, change may be linked to enhanced living conditions, improved health care, growth of entitlement programs, development of social status, etc.  But every level of social status can envision some benefit in changing the status quo.  This is especially true during increasingly difficult times (i.e. rising gasoline prices, rising food costs, looming housing crisis, etc).  So what does it mean to advertise that change is what is needed...what the people want...what the voters crave...?

This year one campaign in particular has seized upon this word in order to attract as wide an electorate as possible.  Senator Obama has managed to conceal any particular agenda through the elusive goal of change.  The seemingly lemming-like response suggests that many individuals today are indeed hurting in one way, shape or form.  But there is no substance to the propaganda-like electioneering.  I have heard many descriptions of Senator Obama, including being refferred to as a "manchurian candidate", or an "empty suit".  These disagreeable descriptions suggest that some realize the emptiness of these promises.  But my concern involves the many who follow this Pied Piper without the realization that the word change in ANY election is absolutely meaningless.  By definition...when defining the election process...every election for any political position is an election for change.  Senator Obama does not have a monopoly on that concept.  Indeed, Senators Clinton and McCain are also campaigning for change. 

 

Many agree that there needs to be more debate and discussion on substantive issues, and that we need to get away from personal associations, past affiliations and personal attacks.  I will not argue the significance of contraversies such as Reverend Wright, the degree of pride in America, people clinging to guns and religion, and NAFTA in Canada.  Those are topics for other blogs.  My concern here is the need to start eliminating the word change from the campaign process...not by law, ordinance or mandate.  The people must send a message this election year.  Because independents are going to make a huge difference this year...indeed we will be choosing the next president of the United States, as we often do...we must be the ones to drive that word out of all future electioneering.  We must help future politicians realize that use of the word change will not detract from the true goal of elections.  Every election results in change, whether the candidate campaigned on it or not.  Senator Obama must realize that use of that word is just as insubstantial as the other topics from which he is running.