Before I begin my rant, let me first acknowledge two things:
1. The opinions expressed on this blog are wholly my own and do not reflect the opinions of my employer, my family, my publisher or any other binding relationship I find myself in.
2. I know next to nothing about anything when it comes to politics.
That being said, I'm getting really, really tired of the bald-faced claims of some of the candidates to be the "candidate of change." I'm thinking of one such candidate in particular, whose unusual name I won't mention. You'll probably figure it out pretty quickly. The thing that bugs me about this change-agent campaign is how frustratingly naked the opportunism is that's driving it. "Change" became the buzzword coming out of Iowa, and suddenly "change" is the middle name of this oddly named candidate.
Let me quickly add that "change" itself is a pretty vague concept. Do we want any kind of change whatsoever? Would the sinking of either coast into either ocean be good merely because it changes the landscape of the country? Similarly, is there nothing whatsoever that we may want to hold onto in even the slightest detail? Is the public school system inherently flawed simply because it will have existed prior to this particular candidate's taking office? Change, change change--blah, blah, blah.
So I reject the premise of superficial change as a legitimate campaign platform. But even if I were to grant the notion that what Washington needs is change, I wouldn't grant that this particular candidate is the obvious choice. Consider, for example, the current president, whose policies and perspective are among the issues demanding change:
He's the former governor of a state whose legislature was dominated by a different political party.
He's a former, relatively successful businessman.
He's a principled man of faith.
He's a "uniter, not a divider."
He had nebulous foreign policy experience when he announced his campaign for president.
He has a family pedigree in various levels of government.
He has a thing for Ronald Reagan.
Not much distinguishes the current president from this current candidate beyond the oddness of this particular candidate's name. So is it reasonable to anticipate change from such a near-doppelganger of the status quo?
All right. I'm done. Please note that I never named a candidate and that I explicitly distanced myself from all my binding relationships in this stating of my hopelessly naive political opinion. Someone, now, please change the subject.