SHANNON KELLY
Contributor
Election ‘08’s big words are “change” and “experience.” Candidates love to spout them out, and as Super Tuesday passed, the same words held the same bizarre clout. I realized voters are eating these words right up, without taking a second to digest their meaning (or lack thereof). The presidential front-runners are exploiting these seemingly weighty words in order to convince voters that their meaningless versions of the words actually mean something.
Barack “Believe in Me” Obama, Hillary “Screeching from Experience” Clinton, and John “War Hero” McCain especially seem to be using this peculiar tactic to their advantage.
Obama has his followers fooled into thinking they can believe in the “change” he promises to bring. But all he means by “change” is “I’m not George W. Bush, and I’m not married to Bill Clinton.”
Hillary Clinton squeals “experience,” but a first lady title does not lend presidential practice. She’s only served four more years in the Senate than Obama, and she’s served less time overall in elective office than the self-anointed “change” agent. But Hillary will bring her “experience” and her cheating husband right back to the Oval Office. Won’t it be a Hallmark moment when she sits at the desk at which her husband once sat (whether he was using it to sign bills or hide interns)?
McCain uses a unique blend of both words, fooling many into thinking he’s a Republican just because he wears a GOP overcoat. His “experience” has pretty much consisted of being shot down in Vietnam and public service, so is he is very experienced when it comes to waging war and pandering to politicians.
“Freedom” somehow became the forbidden word in this race, and if candidates championed the founders’ ideals and advocated individual liberty, they paid a price (Thompson was out early, and Ron Paul has been made into a joke). How has the most important American ideal been lost to meaningless loaded words like “change” and “experience”? Why have the candidates who say, “You need me to save you” won over those who say, “I believe in your capabilities as individuals more than I believe in the government’s ability to run your life?”
Super Tuesday was another example of too many voters drooling over “change.” It was also another example of people laughing at and shrugging off candidates who remembered the one word that actually means something, “freedom.” The mainstream media, for example, mocked Ron Paul, and voters absolutely snubbed him. But he’s the only candidate who makes freedom his priority and can back the claims that come with words like “change” and “experience.”
Voters want change? Paul’s refusal to support the Iraq invasion (from day one), and disgust with government spending and Bush’s presidential power trip prove his willingness to change from the country’s current state. Experience? Paul served militarily as a flight surgeon and Air Force captain and has held public office since the 1970s. Paul’s credentials support the words Clinton and Obama cling so tightly to, but Paul never trumpeted them during his campaign. He mistakenly thought voters cared about issues like individual rights and freedom and spent more time defending his principles than coming up with catchy campaign slogans.
The candidate who fundamentally represents “experience” and “change,” ‘08’s biggest words, became the media laughing stock and remained virtually unknown to voters. His attempts at breathing life back into the ideals on which this country was founded were consistently ignored by the American public.
In this race, unwavering ideals mean less to many Americans than meaningless words. If people don’t refocus their attention on principles rather than meaningless slogans, this country will become something far from what its founders intended.
Let’s hope “founding principles” and “freedom” don’t become phrases of the past.
02-07-2008