Change?

[NortheastCynic]

The overwhelming theme to this year's Presidential election's campaigning season has been that of 'change'. The electorate, evidently, wants something new. Both Democratic Party Presidential candidates have been bickering over the past several months about who is more equipped to bring about this 'change'. Hillary Clinton argues that she has the 'experience' of bringing 'change' and is therefore a more qualified Commander-in-Chief than Barrack Obama. Obama brings a fresh face and promises to 'change the culture' of Washington D.C. John McCain is touting his alleged 'maverick' status within the Republican Party and speaks of his past attempts at cleaning up D.C. [McCain-Feingold, for example]. And back and forth the three have gone, all explaining why they are the ones who are most likely to produce 'change'. There are two problems that I have identified with this argument.

1. No one has defined 'change', in my view, intentionally.
2. None of the three candidates have differentiated themselves from any other, run-of-the-mill Beltway politicians.

Change, change, change. What is this 'change' that our fellow Americans want? Frankly, they don't know. There are so many distinctly different factions clamoring for 'change' that it is impossible to piece together a coherent definition. The increasingly more vocal 'working class' white voters appear to want more government subsidies and various forms of aid. Reformists want more 'accountable' and 'open' government and want the power/influence of lobbyists to be checked. College students demand more federal involvement in the college loans industry. The elderly want to strengthen Medicare and Social Security. The poor want a more expansive welfare system. Etc. etc.

There are so many who want so much; to compartmentalize all of these demands, some of which are competing, into one word, 'change' is absurd. But damn, it makes a great political buzzword.

What of our candidates?

Hillary Clinton claims to have a background of creating positive change. She has been in the Senate since 2001. Since that date, what significant 'change' has been achieved by the Federal government? Does it not stand to reason that if in 2008, voters demand change, no change [or not enough] had occurred in the recent past prior to 2008. If Sen. Clinton had experience in creating positive change, it would appear as though the electorate is not aware of it, or it simply does not exist.

Senator McCain? Senator McCain's greatest success throughout the last several years was the passage of the toothless McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill. His foreign policy ideals are eerily similar to the current Administration's and he is a social moderate. Change?

Ah yes, Senator Obama. He is credited with spreading the Change bug. He is a new kind of politician. Yet Obama rose through the Chicago and Illinois political ranks just like everyone else; he befriended powerful elites, who led him to more powerful elites, who led to more powerful elites until he had more powerful elites on his side than his competitors. Well then, perhaps he's been an agent of change during his short tenure in the Senate? No, like his colleagues, McCain and Clinton, he has not. But he is now championing reforms and proposals all along the country that would create 'change'. Universal healthcare, campaign finance, etc. etc. All of these proposals, would, of course, have to originate from none other than...Congress.

It appears as though Senators McCain, Obama and Clinton have forgotten that they, as Senators, could be working on creating positive 'change' now, as Senators, in Congress. In addition, they have seemingly forgotten that the President has no legislative power.

They must have forgotten...Or, it could be that three Senators with no history of producing change are now simply taking advantage of a fractured electorate full of factions' desire for an abstract concept of change that they cannot define nor truly understand?

Nah...

-NC

[Osborn F. Enready]

Good post NorthEastCynic.

You said:
Change, change, change. What is this 'change' that our fellow Americans want? Frankly, they don't know. There are so many distinctly different factions clamoring for 'change' that it is impossible to piece together a coherent definition.

I would alledge this is a direct result of a bi-partisan monopoly holding complete power of debates, ballot access, etc, for several decades. It has removed the American peoples choice of supporting their INDIVIDUALLY RESPECTIVE voices of change that the other 70 political parties are offering, but people never hear, and forcing them to choose between:
1) not voting at all in protest
2) voting for someone that doesn't ecompass but a small portion of what they desire
3) voting for someone they view as LEAST DAMAGING, as opposed to MOST BENEFICIAL.
4) voting for a third party that gets no national media recognition, and has little to no chance of being a legitimate contender.

The American people have been duped..... some of them are now finally waking up to that fact, now that its almost too late to do anything but revolt, which is EXACTLY what the bi-partisan collusion wanted to begin with.

[NortheastCynic]

Thanks, and I agree Osborn. However, I'm unsure of what can be done to break the 2-party system, which has become structurally integrated with American electoral politics. Proportional representation? Instant run-off?

-NC

[Osborn F. Enready]

My proposal to break the two party monopoly would be this:

1) A Constitutional Amendment recognizing the right of all BORN or NATURALIZED citizens to vote in elections; and a right that those elections be free of manipulation, provable through public oversight of all elections proceedings and ballot handling.

2) A Constitutional Amendment regulating ballot access in all states and protectorates that are allowed to vote in national elections, and basing that "standard" on the support garnered by the top 10 political parties in the U.S., AFTER the Republicans and Democrats. (very low ballot access requirements)

3) A public tax supported "election channel" much like C-Span, dedicating all of its time to oversight, non-biased coverage of ALL candidates and ALL elections, with internet access to all recorded oversight files and candidate speeches.

4) A full change to "Instant Runoff Voting" with fully verifiable multi-party paper receipts in all states, for all public elections.

5) A mandate from the Executive Office, to the FCC requiring the FCC to hold all electronicly trasmitted "news channels" to the same bar of coverage for all candidates, if they wish to maintain recognition and operation as a "news channel" serving the people of the United States, on the peoples airwaves under regulation by the FCC.

I have heard some other good additions to those ideas also, but they fail to be available as I right this from the top of my head.

[NortheastCynic]

I like it...Now all we have to do is...do it.

And God knows the odds of politicians and party's voluntarily relinquishing their strangle-hold on American electoral politics are not very good.

Oy vey. People are sick of partisan politics, they want change, blah, blah, blah. No one's willing to vote 3rd party or Independent and actually do something. Sadly, bitching is seen as political action these day.

-NC

[Truth_and_Power]

My proposal to break the two party monopoly would be this:

1) A Constitutional Amendment recognizing the right of all BORN or NATURALIZED citizens to vote in elections; and a right that those elections be free of manipulation, provable through public oversight of all elections proceedings and ballot handling.

2) A Constitutional Amendment regulating ballot access in all states and protectorates that are allowed to vote in national elections, and basing that "standard" on the support garnered by the top 10 political parties in the U.S., AFTER the Republicans and Democrats. (very low ballot access requirements)

3) A public tax supported "election channel" much like C-Span, dedicating all of its time to oversight, non-biased coverage of ALL candidates and ALL elections, with internet access to all recorded oversight files and candidate speeches.

4) A full change to "Instant Runoff Voting" with fully verifiable multi-party paper receipts in all states, for all public elections.

5) A mandate from the Executive Office, to the FCC requiring the FCC to hold all electronicly trasmitted "news channels" to the same bar of coverage for all candidates, if they wish to maintain recognition and operation as a "news channel" serving the people of the United States, on the peoples airwaves under regulation by the FCC.

I have heard some other good additions to those ideas also, but they fail to be available as I right this from the top of my head.

But..but... that would be "actual" change. What we really need is a guy that is a different color who just talks nicer.

[NortheastCynic]

But..but... that would be "actual" change. What we really need is a guy that is a different color who just talks nicer.Uh...YES we can!

-NC

[suralos]

Change is in our evolutionary formula.
Change is boredom and stagnation shattered by a golden dawn and brighter horizon.
Change is what lies just over the hill opposite the fence that frequently, but not always, belongs to someone else, like your neighbor.
Change is why people divorce, why resumes are written, novels imagined and music composed.
Change is why advertising works.
Change is why Ben Hur is no longer number one at the box office.
Change is why God made remote controls.
Change is why we have 57-inch TV screens, but it doesn't explain couches, which are evil.
Change is what snake oil sidemen and politicians pitch to pluck your pockets because you're tame, civilized and ripe, bitching like cattle in a holding pen after every change, arguably because the good, qualified politicians are about as exciting as paint on a wall that needs something -- a Picasso or something on the right and a shrunken head dividing the remaining space.

[Scribbler1]

My proposal to break the two party monopoly would be this:

1) A Constitutional Amendment recognizing the right of all BORN or NATURALIZED citizens to vote in elections; and a right that those elections be free of manipulation, provable through public oversight of all elections proceedings and ballot handling.

2) A Constitutional Amendment regulating ballot access in all states and protectorates that are allowed to vote in national elections, and basing that "standard" on the support garnered by the top 10 political parties in the U.S., AFTER the Republicans and Democrats. (very low ballot access requirements)

3) A public tax supported "election channel" much like C-Span, dedicating all of its time to oversight, non-biased coverage of ALL candidates and ALL elections, with internet access to all recorded oversight files and candidate speeches.

4) A full change to "Instant Runoff Voting" with fully verifiable multi-party paper receipts in all states, for all public elections.

5) A mandate from the Executive Office, to the FCC requiring the FCC to hold all electronicly trasmitted "news channels" to the same bar of coverage for all candidates, if they wish to maintain recognition and operation as a "news channel" serving the people of the United States, on the peoples airwaves under regulation by the FCC.

I have heard some other good additions to those ideas also, but they fail to be available as I right this from the top of my head.The only problem I see with those solutions is that those changes, particularly any constitutional amendment, will have to be enacted by the very same people we are trying to take the power FROM.

I somehow doubt they will be very cooperative in this.

[Truth_and_Power]

The only problem I see with those solutions is that those changes, particularly any constitutional amendment, will have to be enacted by the very same people we are trying to take the power FROM.

I somehow doubt they will be very cooperative in this.

You're right, better to go along and be quiet.

[Scribbler1]

Funny, I don't recall saying that.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I would tend to agree with Scribbler here.

IT is this reason, those who espouse such illogical nonsense be browbeaten with logic until they succumb to the irrationality of their subjective desires, they are pushing into law. The only way to do this is to show them how their immoral laws feel when directed AT THEM, and they have no basis to appeal to for mercy any longer.

IF they refuse logic, all that is left is force.... that is the sad fact of it.

[Scribbler1]

I agree, if there were no other alternatives. However, the biggest alternative we have is to start electing people from other parties, and a LOT of them, and soon.

But what strikes me is that the same people who won't vote for alternative candidates are the same people who would NEVER support a genuine revolution, forceful or not.

That is the saddest fact of all.

[Osborn F. Enready]

While it is indeed a sad fact Scribbler, I refuse to comply with what they are pushing, regardless of the cost to me. Perhaps slaughter of the magnitude they force upon the people, the enforcers, the rebellion, is what they require to again recognize reason.... perhaps not, but I relish no part of seeing a world without it.

I dislike force as much or more than anyone, but if it has any use, it is in the fight for defense of ones life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as that is all any of us is charged with by nature, and no man or government of man has right to take any of them. It would indeed be sad that after all we have done, we are forced to resort back to square one, yet again.

[Scribbler1]

I just think that among the outraged, only a precious few are outraged ENOUGH to make any kind of rebellion practical. This is a nation with a pretty large group of cowards. The kind of people who talk like John Wayne, yet run crying to the government to fix all their petty problems.

Any armed revolt, IMO, would be seen by the masses as another 1968 Dem convention riot, where the "good guys" (the authorities) put down a group of nasty rebels. Of course they would be called "terrorists" today, I'm sure.
I also think the government would actually GAIN support if such an action were to happen.

[Osborn F. Enready]

That will remain to be seen if it happens.

I know my line in the sand has been drawn however.

[Scribbler1]

Of course, we can hope it never gets that far.