Mavs Man
09-17-2007, 01:19 AM
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070916/OPINION03/709160317/1035/OPINION
Doak: This election's buzzword of choice has got to change
By RICHARD DOAK
SPECIAL TO THE REGISTER
I'm sick of change.
Oh, I don't mean actual change. I'll cope with that as well as the next person.
I mean "change" as a political buzzword.
Listen to the presidential candidates' commercials saturating Iowa's airwaves, and you'll hear the word over and over.
Change, change, change.
It's enough to make a listener gag, gag, gag.
"Change" is one of those focus-group-tested words that campaign consultants love. It seems to say something without really saying anything.
Everyone is for change, even when it comes across as ludicrous, such as when Mitt Romney asserts that "change begins" with him.
Really? Romney might claim to be an agent of change, but he puts forth boilerplate that has been standard Republicanism for at least 25 years: Cut taxes, beef up the military, oppose abortion. Romney also more or less agrees with President Bush on Iraq.
What, exactly, in that platform qualifies as change? Right. Not a thing.
Romney also says he is a conservative. By definition, conservatives resist change. "Conservative for change" is an oxymoron. If he is for change, Romney cannot be a conservative. But what the heck? Politicians never let dictionary definitions stop them from employing a proven buzzword.
On the Democratic side, just about all the candidates use the C-word liberally.
Hillary Clinton says the country is "ready for change," but it's hard to see how restoring the Clinton family to the White House would constitute a whole lot of change.
Barack Obama's Web site includes a "countdown to change." His idea of change seems to be something like, "Aw shucks, can't we all get along?"
John Edwards has a "campaign to change America." He at least offers some notion of the change he would like to see - a better deal for working people - but like all calls for change his tends to be a little vague.
That's the trouble with "change." The word doesn't tell the listener much. What's a voter to make of things if candidates along the spectrum from Tom Tancredo to Dennis Kucinich all espouse change?
I developed an aversion to the word in my pre-retirement days when various managers would urge employees to "embrace change." Anyone labeled a "change resister" was in career-ending trouble.
What nonsense. Change for change's sake is the province of fools. Some change is good. Some is bad. One kind should be embraced, the other resisted as a matter of good sense.
Those who spout a mindless mantra of change do us no service.
Still, change is a powerful word, perhaps especially this year with a majority of Americans telling pollsters the country is on the wrong track. No wonder all the politicians say they're for change. People want it.
Or do they? The truth is, Americans tend to be conservative, in the original meaning of the word. They are reluctant to change. They might want a different face in the White House. They might want a more enlightened foreign policy and a domestic policy that gives more help to stressed-out working families.
But do Americans want deep-down, fundamental change? Do they want to tear everything up and start over again?
Doubtful. If Americans wanted that much change, we'd be having a revolution instead of an election.
The American system has lasted so long precisely because elections don't result in all that much change.
The policy shifts can be significant, and occasional elections are epochal. Elections do matter, but the change they bring about is seldom radical.
By chanting the word "change," candidates create an illusion of promising more than they are likely to deliver.
We listeners might be better off if we covered our ears whenever we hear the word "change." Instead, we should seek out the details of exactly what each candidate is proposing to change.
Then we can make the crucial and sometimes neglected judgment: whether it's good change or bad change.
RICHARD DOAK is a retired Register editor and columnist and a lecturer in journalism at Iowa State University
Doak: This election's buzzword of choice has got to change
By RICHARD DOAK
SPECIAL TO THE REGISTER
I'm sick of change.
Oh, I don't mean actual change. I'll cope with that as well as the next person.
I mean "change" as a political buzzword.
Listen to the presidential candidates' commercials saturating Iowa's airwaves, and you'll hear the word over and over.
Change, change, change.
It's enough to make a listener gag, gag, gag.
"Change" is one of those focus-group-tested words that campaign consultants love. It seems to say something without really saying anything.
Everyone is for change, even when it comes across as ludicrous, such as when Mitt Romney asserts that "change begins" with him.
Really? Romney might claim to be an agent of change, but he puts forth boilerplate that has been standard Republicanism for at least 25 years: Cut taxes, beef up the military, oppose abortion. Romney also more or less agrees with President Bush on Iraq.
What, exactly, in that platform qualifies as change? Right. Not a thing.
Romney also says he is a conservative. By definition, conservatives resist change. "Conservative for change" is an oxymoron. If he is for change, Romney cannot be a conservative. But what the heck? Politicians never let dictionary definitions stop them from employing a proven buzzword.
On the Democratic side, just about all the candidates use the C-word liberally.
Hillary Clinton says the country is "ready for change," but it's hard to see how restoring the Clinton family to the White House would constitute a whole lot of change.
Barack Obama's Web site includes a "countdown to change." His idea of change seems to be something like, "Aw shucks, can't we all get along?"
John Edwards has a "campaign to change America." He at least offers some notion of the change he would like to see - a better deal for working people - but like all calls for change his tends to be a little vague.
That's the trouble with "change." The word doesn't tell the listener much. What's a voter to make of things if candidates along the spectrum from Tom Tancredo to Dennis Kucinich all espouse change?
I developed an aversion to the word in my pre-retirement days when various managers would urge employees to "embrace change." Anyone labeled a "change resister" was in career-ending trouble.
What nonsense. Change for change's sake is the province of fools. Some change is good. Some is bad. One kind should be embraced, the other resisted as a matter of good sense.
Those who spout a mindless mantra of change do us no service.
Still, change is a powerful word, perhaps especially this year with a majority of Americans telling pollsters the country is on the wrong track. No wonder all the politicians say they're for change. People want it.
Or do they? The truth is, Americans tend to be conservative, in the original meaning of the word. They are reluctant to change. They might want a different face in the White House. They might want a more enlightened foreign policy and a domestic policy that gives more help to stressed-out working families.
But do Americans want deep-down, fundamental change? Do they want to tear everything up and start over again?
Doubtful. If Americans wanted that much change, we'd be having a revolution instead of an election.
The American system has lasted so long precisely because elections don't result in all that much change.
The policy shifts can be significant, and occasional elections are epochal. Elections do matter, but the change they bring about is seldom radical.
By chanting the word "change," candidates create an illusion of promising more than they are likely to deliver.
We listeners might be better off if we covered our ears whenever we hear the word "change." Instead, we should seek out the details of exactly what each candidate is proposing to change.
Then we can make the crucial and sometimes neglected judgment: whether it's good change or bad change.
RICHARD DOAK is a retired Register editor and columnist and a lecturer in journalism at Iowa State University