Voters Want Change. But What Type of Change?
The Iowa caucus votes are in. The entrance polls have been analyzed. The candidates and pundits have moved on to New Hampshire. And after all is said and done, the general consensus is that Iowa has opted for “change”. But change of what?
Change of our taxing system? Haven’t heard much of that. Maybe change how Social Security is funded or paid? Sadly, haven’t heard much of that either. Out of Iraq . . tomorrow, next month, next year, next decade. No, not even much discussion about that. So what is the “change” everyone is clamoring for?
Maybe more partisanship? More bickering and fighting? More dividing rather than uniting? I haven’t heard anyone voice support for any of these.
The change I sense that voters are striving for is macro in nature, not micro. More generic than concrete. More systemic than topical.
What then? Voters want less partisanship. Less bickering and fighting. More uniting rather than dividing. This is what voters really want. They dare to believe their government can work. That it can accomplish great (or at least good) things. A government . . . “for the people”.
The American people are doers. We are movers and shakers. “How can we get from “Point A” to “Point B”?” Corroboration is “in”.
Instead, many of our politicians are the opposite. “How can we sustain our power base?” “How can we make sure we get the credit and not the other side?” “How can we generate wedge issues?”
This is what voters want changed. Enough of the “me first”. Enough of the “party first”.
Instead, let’s change to “America first”.
More News and Commentary for Moderates
“‘Moderate’ is not a 4-letter word.”
opinions powered by SendLove.to
2 Responses to “Voters Want Change. But What Type of Change?”
I think the public has expressed some specifics in its desire for change. Most notably, a repudiation of the Bush doctrines of fiscal irresponsibility, intrusive government and especially, of war. There is certainly a desire that our government work on our behalf, for the public good, and a clear sense that “special interests” are calling the shots. As for less partisanship and less bickering, perhaps we want that, but I think the realists among us know that changing the status quo, especially with respect to the power of money over politics, will take a battle, as the rich and powerful are not about to give up without a fight. The belief that this will be “bipartisan” is sheer delusion. Just listen to the “free-market” rhetoric from the GOP candidates, and demonizing any other potential solution than the “invisible hand” of the market as “socialism”.
We have to be prepared for a fight. Those who believe that the market will force, for example, Exxon Mobil to clean up the mess it made in Alaska are simply not paying attention (and haven't been for the last 25 years). Those who believe the insurance companies will ever care more about our health than their profit are probably insane.
Yes! Let's put America first. As I've probably said all too often, my yardstick for government is this:
1. I think it would be a refreshing change to have a president who will lead a good faith government of the people, by the people, for the people.
2. Er…
3. That's it.