ERIK HAYDEN
Contributor
The political catchword of the season, “change,” harkens back to the idealistic eras in American society — the roaring twenties or the early sixties.
Today’s ethos is forward-looking, yet deeply touches a yearning desire of Americans to rid themselves of narrow-minded political punditry, attack ads, amorphous presidential candidates and fabricated divisions in voter demographics. This simple slogan has embraced the ideas that we have embellished over the course of our short 200 years of existence as a nation.
Barack Obama convincingly won in Iowa not because of the issues, his perceived experience, money or organization. He locked onto the simple word “change,” which had the ability to connect with the people he spoke to.
He tapped into a voting bloc that was weary of the secretive Bush regime but cautious of returning to the freewheeling Clintonian circus of the ‘90s. In short, it was voters looking for someone who seemed to represent something new.
There is nothing particularly inspiring about the fact that Obama managed to reach out to younger and eager caucus-goers in a small state in the Midwest. The most interesting aspect of this was his rivals’ responses to his victory.
On Jan. 4, the day after the Iowa caucuses, the Clinton caravan headed to New Hampshire with a slogan on her bus that said “Experience…and Change.”
John Edwards, who was largely ignored up until the point of placing a surprising second in Iowa, talked about the victory as a strong signal that the American people want “change” and will fight to “defeat the forces of the status-quo” (presumably the third-place Clinton).
It is not really normal that political rivals try to jump on the bandwagon of opponents. It may be that the other candidates on the campaign trail had a change of heart in the race after Iowa, or perhaps they “found a voice” as Hillary put it.
Perhaps more cynically, the armies of analysts realized that the exit polls showed that over 65 percent of the electorate voted for the candidate they felt would most bring about “change.”
We have seen frantic retail politics among the candidates in the last several weeks. It seems like Hillary Clinton and the Republicans cannot spit out the word “change” fast enough on the campaign trail. Why is this word so powerful?
“Change” reminds voters that something can be done to improve their lives. Something can be done about the war in Iraq. Something can be done for those who do not have healthcare. And we have a stake in deciding what may be done.
It is no surprise that Obama is sweeping up the youth vote. He is finally someone we can believe in – someone who hasn’t been partaking in the politics of the past or mudslinging his way to the top of the political hierarchy but appeals to the minds and hearts of those who feel called to action. He proclaims at nearly every one of his rallies that, “There has never been anything false about hope.” It just seems that all too often we are splintered or divided or bored and fall off the perceived bandwagon.
I would like to believe that we do not rally around empty rhetoric. We are a generation that is analyzed and dissected and can never really rally around one person or idea and embrace a single cause.
Maybe this is the reason why inspired artists and philanthropists have nobly brought the genocide in Darfur and the slaughter of Burmese Monks in Myanmar to our attention, yet we have seen no unified action on the part of the government or a grassroots coalition.
Hopefully, Americans will be able to see through the haze that obfuscated by public relations people and political yes-men — by acting on the real meaning of a simple word, “change,” that has already inspired millions of Americans.
02-07-2008