Promising change
Thanks to all those who pointed out that the Hillary line on poetry and prose (as slightly altered by me) came from Mario Cuomo - I had not realised. In fact, I was with Steve Tilley in thinking its provenance was The West Wing...
Seriously, on the subject of accuracy, while we make every effort etc, I must admit that I sometimes write this from memory with no immediate access even to so do forgive me the odd error in precise quotation.
Perhaps I should promise change. That calms the crowd. But does this slogan of 2008 have any meaning? A few pieces over the weekend capture the oddness of the campaign so far: my favourite was simply pointing out that in America Washington is not where change traditionally comes from.
But perhaps more important is the question of whether "change" as bandied about at the moment, has .
Here's what change means - at my children's school a sweet and much-loved man who helps direct the traffic in the morning is very ill and we are asked to give our good wishes, our prayers, and money. Money? He has no proper insurance. Either you think that is OK or you don't (I offer no opinion - the British NHS has its faults just as the US system does), and either you have a plan to change that aspect of American life or you do not.
The main Democratic party candidates all say they do - but that is the point; it should surely come down in the end to the quality of the plan, not the attractiveness of the packaging. The change brand - like all brands - needs substance to work.
Hello, I'm 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
Mercy! What does Steyn EAT anyway, to render him so nastily constipated? I mean, is there anything that WOULD make him say a positive word about anybody?
I absolutely agree with you on 'change' requiring substance in order to work. But as an independent voter, I'd like to insert a word here, while everybody (except you) sounds like a pack of hyenas mocking the "Change" motif.
"Change" is simply the term that Barack Obama used sooner--and more effectively--than the other candidates did. When they saw the response that he was drawing, they all glombed on to that term ad absurdum. It has now been rendered silly.
But what draws so many to Obama isn't the concept of "Change" so much as it is the concept of having a government that WORKS, once again. As long as petty squabbles and ideologies continue to freeze Congress on most critical issues, the door's wide open for every horrible kind of rule imaginable to step in and take control. (As most believe it already has.)
Americans are sick of the fighting, the stagnation, the corruption, the hyperbole, and sick to PIECES of childish self-interest in high places. It appears to me that the idea of a leader who might actually succeed in breaking the paralysis, is what draws people to Barack Obama.
I'm quite disappointed with the tendencious, partial reporting by the 麻豆官网首页入口 on the race issue between Obama and Clinton. whatever happened to objective journalism. The 麻豆官网首页入口 went to great length to describe how Hillary sought to clarify her comment, but left only a line for Obama: 'The notion that somehow this is our doing is somehow ludicrous'. For the records, this is what Obama said: '鈥淪enator Clinton made an unfortunate remark, an ill-advised remark, about King and Lyndon Johnson. I didn鈥檛 make the statement,鈥 Mr. Obama said. 鈥淚 haven鈥檛 remarked on it, and she, I think, offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King鈥檚 role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that, but the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous.鈥
So, the point is that it was Clinton that made the rather insensitive remark, which is on tape. Now she turns round to accuse the Obama of raising the race issue, and 麻豆官网首页入口 has joined in! By the way, when Hillary Clinton commended one of the 麻豆官网首页入口 American reporter on the night on New Hampshire primary, she thanked him for being faithful, which clearly embarrased the reporter, who turned arround and said : Yes, we are very resilient' or something. Now, when a politician thnaked a journalist for being faithful, i suppose we are not all stupid to understand what that means...
Precisely, Mr Webb! Pithy, sound & cutting right to the core of the matter.
Thanks for bringing up this point. The system is terrible- I really hope 'change' is more than a slogan to these candidates. Obama is a bright shiny package but I am starting to wonder whats really inside...and what he really has to offer.
Justin
It has been a long time since we were at the LSE. It is great to see you doing so well and I am enjoying the reports and blogs.
Your latest issue touches on the theme of change. 'Change' is a useful theme because it partly states the obvious as there will be a new face in the White House and aniticipates a moving on to some place better. You are right about substance of course, but real substance (and the testing of the brand) will surely come when someone takes office not before, when their policies are shaped by the realities and compromises of office. Currently, the focus on change must be about tone and texture - how America perceives itself and wants to be perceived by others. My guess is that people will decide which of the mood music is pleasing and who they trust most to deliver their vision of change. For me Obama and McCain are currently playing the best tunes and seem best placed to reach across the political divides in the US and to repair America's reputation internationally. All the very best. Mark Withers
I think Martin Sheen should run for president - that would confuse people!
"at my children's school a sweet and much loved man who helps direct the traffic in the morning is very ill and we are asked to give our good wishes, our prayers, and money. Money? He has no proper insurance. Either you think that is OK or you don't (I offer no opinion - the British NHS has its faults just as the US system does)"
I'd say that's just moral cowardice: of course it's not OK. What to do about it is another question, but the US and UK systems are not the only options.
Was there ever a politician born who didn't promise change? If he's in office and things are going well he promises to continue making changes that got things that way. If he's in office and things are not going well he says problems are a holdover from his failed predecessors and promises to continue to work for changes he hasn't obtained so far to the degree necessary for them to work (Tony Blair milked that one for ten years.) If he's out of office, he will tell you things are awful and he will make changes for the better. That's what politics is about everywhere, people making empty promises they know they can't fulfill so they can get into power. The only difference between one party and another is who their friends are whom they will shovel taxpayer money towards.
Tens of millions of Americans without health insurance is one of many serious issues facing the US which also includes the economy, national security and the war against Islamofascism, social security, personal income, poverty, crumbling infrastructure, climate change and a lot more. So far nobody ANYWHERE has devised a satisfactory solution to universal medical insurance, Hillary Clinton's proposal of a decade ago being entirely unacceptable. Nor do we want any part of the failed systems we see in Europe and Canada. When they have real medical problems and can afford it, they come here where there are no waiting lists and where they and Americans believe they still get the best medical treatment available anywhere (it seems like there's an MRI on every street corner of every town in the US which have to be kept busy while some entire countries don't have even one.) Although we see occasional well publicized exceptions in the media, I don't see large numbers of people dying for lack of medical treatement in the US and that even includes illegal aliens. The system for equitably paying for it is what is broken. BTW, in Britain, they are notorious for their long waiting lists for treatment. In France they claim the best medical treatment system. It ought to be, half of every Euro their national economy earns goes to pay for it, one reason their government is bankrupt and their domestic economy is dead. In Britain wealthy people with serious medical problems pay doctors privately despite the NHS being free and remarkably, even some Canadians come to the US for treatment despite their own national health insurance system. Candidates for President promise to fix it but which one actually has a well thought out program that might be enacted into law? Do you see one? I don't.
"Change" is a perennial promise by politicians of all varieties. The word covers a multitude of possibilities, many very unpleasant. Even "change for the better" is subjective in substance and scope.
Mencken pointed out that politicians work to keep voters scared with an endless series of hobgoblins, the real end purpose to expand the politicians' power. The fatal flaw of democracy is that voters, sooner or later, vote it out of existence, handing power to an alleged savior on a white horse. America's great experiment was the constitutional republic, in which tyranny over individuals would be impossible no matter the public opinion du jour.
With FDR, America morphed into a quasi-democracy where politicians cast government as a kind of giant social services agency with an endless series of human problems to solve.
Viewed soberly, there's no question pure democracy is an exceptionally bad idea and that the constitutional republic is, in contrast, the best idea for governance humans have yet come up with.
No better argument for this proposition need be made than the current crop of presidential contenders, Democrats and Republicans alike.
You are so right on. Obama is a bright, charismatic figure, but he has been less than forward with any substantive ideas.
Unfortunately, in regards to the Clinton race imbroglio, it appears Obama's supporters are beginning to engage in the same character attacks that they vowed they never would never engage in.
Obama is walking a fine line.
While "all the main Democratic candidates say they do" support some form of change in the health care system a Republican has actually changed it. Mitt Romney has implemented universal health care as Governor of Massachusetts. I don't see why he couldn't, or wouldn't, do it for the nation if elected President of the United States.
It's all very well to promise change when you're on the campaign trail. It's quite another to deliver it when you're in the White House and you discover how few choices you really have, and how many are dictated by the people with the real power - the multinationals, banks, and individuals from old and wealthy families.
Obama can promise change all he likes - he may well not be able to deliver. Clinton doesn't really promise much change, and is really the continuity option.
You want real change? Vote for Ron Paul.
I know that you are based in the US but that does not mean you have to lower your style of writing to be comprehensible for them. Please read your blog, observe grammar rules and 'dumb it down'. This is a comment on all of your blogs, not this one in particular. Thanks
Mr. Web you are totally right, except for the randomness of Martin Sheen's picture.
The idea of universal health care is immensely appealing. I require medicine for severe chronic asthma and I am terrified that when the time comes to leave my parents coverage I will not be able to get coverage.
That being said, whenever Clinton or Obama talk about universal health care they never state the specifics. I would really love to know how they intend to cover the cost of it and keeps taxes at a reasonable rate.
Or if they would at least provide a meager blueprint of how their health care plan would function with choosing doctors and hospitals.
Of course you are right that all candidates for the US 2008 Presidency promise change but that change does not usually originate in Washington DC, and that in any event what matters is the quality of change, not change for its own sake. But I find it mildly depressing that the various candidates are spending so much effort in "tuning the message" into attractive sound bites that are quite free of content. This makes it hard to figure out how any of them might actually govern, and interact with Congress and with foreign leaders on issues of substance. Not that the 2008 campaign is unique in this regard; all of the last several quadrennial campaigns have been alike in this. As a result, by the time an actual election takes place I go to the polls (or don't) with little idea of what surprising actions, policies and proposals a candidate may pursue if elected. The US and the world would be better off if US voters were given more detailed information about candidates' positions, instead of sparring about who said what in connection with Martin Luther King, Jr., who is agreed by all to have been a great man.
The contrast with local elections is great. In local elections, at least where I live, candidates make clear statements about questions of practical local interest, such as how to fund needed improvements to local infrastructure, and whether or not the town should auction off a tract of undeveloped town-owned land. This gives me and all other voters a clear idea of whom we would prefer to have in particular local elected offices. Wouldn't it be great if a similar specificity transpired in national election campaigns?
Politicians' job is to change things and to promise "change" means nothing. It lacks even the vague optimism of a promise to make things "better". Should we perhaps assume that they are ruling out the possibility of changing things for the worse?
The critical questions that people should ask are, "What are you going to change?" and "What change are you going to make?"
Answers to these questions might inform the debate.
Chris
Well, who doesn't want to change something?
Touting "change" pleases all, since everyone assumes it refers to their particular version of change.
What exactly does Mr. Webb (and by implication Mr. Steyn) mean by, "simply pointing out that in America Washington is not where change traditionally comes from?" The notion that capitalism is the only positive agent of social change is self-evidently absurd. The Internet that both Steyn and Webb make so much use of is the product of Pentagon research into ways of making military computer networks survivable in a nuclear war; that is, public money funded the R&D which led to the Internet. Entire books have been filled listing technological inventions and innovations that are the result of publicly funded research. And in the United States publicy funded means Washington.
Speculation about what 'change' might mean in office makes limited sense, though Justin seems happy to use it to undermine Obama, especially. It's not particularly insightful to remind us of the difficulty of making Washington work for fundamental policy change.
However the 'change' motif does have some implications which can be legitimately drawn, at various levels:-
a. Change of leader b. possible change of party, philosophy and practice in various policy areas c. more united America d. possible change of stance of US in world to improve international standing & influence e. change of responses in global balances with rise of China, India, Brazil f. Change on global warming & connected issues
It doesn't appear that the new president will have any option but to 'change'. Most Americans, even Republicans, seem to recognise that.
Justin is probably right if he is suggesting 'change' won't change the way things work in Washington but most voters seem to expect outcomes to be different from what the limited views of the current presidency implies.
The current situation is so bad, for so many. It's no wonder that Americans are responding to the "change" message. However, I think Justin Webb's approach is too simplistic. The issues and problems are very complex and require comprehensive solutions and compromise. Compromise has been difficult to find in our gov't, in large part, because of the lack of leadership (espeically in the White House). Americans have no choice but to look at the messenger because any "plans" and promises made today will need to be transformed during the legislative process.
With change things will be... changed.
So much blather about change - well the incumbent isn't standing.
Read Armando Ianucci in the observer here
Everything you thought you coulkd express about platitudes but funnier.
Here's the whole thing.
Like Will Smith, who in the new film I Am Legend wakes up to find himself the last man alive in a world of zombies, am I now the only person left on the planet who finds Barack Obama a little bit dull? Every time I listen to him, I start off thinking I'm about to wet my pants, but a minute-and-a-half later find my mind wandering, asking itself things like: 'What does "the challenge of hope" mean?'
Yet I turn and look around and everyone is shouting and screaming. Obama chants: 'Something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it' and there's a collective swoon from grown pundits and hardened reporters, all of them tearing off their shirts and pleading for Obama to sign their chests with indelible marker pen. Will Smith woke up to a world of zombies: in my personal nightmare, everyone around me has an overactive thyroid.
So why does Obama, billed by everyone as a cross between Gandhi and Abraham Lincoln, but without the terrible looks of either, just leave me puzzled? Maybe it's because his is a rhetoric that soars and takes flight, but alights nowhere. It declares that together we can do anything, but doesn't mention any of the things we can do. It's a perpetual tickle in the nose that never turns into a sneeze. Trying to make sense of what he's saying is like trying to wrap mist.
But, rhythmically, it's quite alluring. It can make anything, even, for example, a simple chair, seem magnificent. Why vote for someone who says: 'See that chair. You can sit on it' when you can have someone like Obama say: 'This chair can take your weight. This chair can hold your buttocks, 15 inches in the air. This chair, this wooden chair, can support the ass of the white man or the crack of the black man, take the downward pressure of a Jewish girl's behind or the butt of a Buddhist adolescent, it can provide comfort for Muslim buns or Mormon backsides, the withered rump of an unemployed man in Nevada struggling to get his kids through high school and needful of a place to sit and think, the plump can of a single mum in Florida desperately struggling to make ends meet but who can no longer face standing, this chair, made from wood felled from the tallest redwood in Chicago, this chair, if only we believed in it, could sustain America's huddled arse.'
Speeches full of hot air ...
Maybe Obama is so successful because he's the supreme master of what American politics excels in: high-flown language that denotes as little as possible. America is curious in that it is the most powerful, influential nation on Earth, it's a doing country, but its politicians rarely spend time on the stump specifying what precisely they will do in case it makes them lose votes. Instead, they settle on emotive, intangible phraseology, such as Hillary Clinton's recent 'I intend to be the President who puts your futures first', uttered in New Hampshire.
I listened to all the victory speeches of the winning candidates last week and it was impossible to spot any difference in the message. Mike Huckabee said: 'This election is not about me, it's about we', while Clinton came up with the variant: 'You want this election to be about you.'
Thus both of them appealed to voters who believed strongly that elections should be about types of people. This is a theme Clinton developed when she said: 'I believe in what we can do together', a brave message this, since there was always the risk she could alienate people who don't believe in what a lot of people can do together. It may well be that the people who do believe in what people can do together came out in droves at the last minute to vote for her, hence her remarkable comeback. Similarly, John McCain's pledge that as President he would 'make in our time another, better world than the one we inherited' might have won over a lot of voters who were dead against making another, worse world than the one they inherited.
... and empty promises
This abandonment of specifics is the opposite of how politics is articulated in Britain. Here, politicians have less power, less international influence and are at the mercy of the markets and even the weather, so they try covering this up with language that is all about pledging and specific target-setting - anything, in fact, that sounds like action.
'We intend to provide a chair, which, over the next five-year period, will guarantee stability for anyone who sat on it.' 'We will introduce the most sweeping measures yet to ensure that all four chair legs are of exactly the same length and we will measure every leg on the chair twice a year and place those results in national chair-leg database.' 'We will stop other people coming over to use the chair before us.'
American politicians take time out from their busy lives to makes speeches that sound empty; British politicians fill the emptiness of their lives with words that make them sound busy. The chair, by the way, was made in China.
I like you analysis, but I disagree with your brief mention of the health care situation.
Sure, NHS has problems, too, but at least the man would get something as opposed to nothing. I don't see how anyone could be indifferent about that. He may end up one of the 18,000 Americans that die every year because of a lack of access to health care, as a study by the Institute of Medicine shows. It's a quiet holocaust of our poor, and it's just as important as anyone's civil rights. You can't vote if you're dead.
Preserve us from any kind of national health service that even remotely mirrors that of the U.K. I have cherished memories of our family doctor coming to the house to care for our children, and visiting his office, which happened to be his own house. And we paid nothing for our prescriptions in those good old days in the land of our birth. Now I am told by a friend in England that when a dentist announced that his practice was going to be a National Health service he opened up to find a line of 200 people waiting.
When I first came to live in America I was a fierce advocate of a national health service for all, but for some time, given what has happened to the N.H.S. in the UK over the years, I have changed my mind.
In any event, have you ever known a social program being run efficiently by governmental agencies?
It is intentional that "change" is kept vague, and this is not an insubstantial consideration.
More than right/left, theres a split in American electorate between the "feelies" and the the "do-ies": the feelies are only concerned about how they feel about something/somebody, and the do-ies care about what someone did and will do.
Obama/Huckabee/Bush are feelies - change is about changing to another feelie you feel better about.
Clinton/McCain/Clinton are do-ies - change is about what they did and will do. Romney tried to play both sides of this, but disgusted the do-ies in overreaching to the feelies, who just didn't get him.
Feelies hate do-ies, and deny them over pointless details, but in the end its just that they've chosen not to feel good about them. To downplay this, do-ies attempt to talk more about feel stuff, and less about what they'll do, to undercut the power feed that energizes opposition.
So its for real reasons that change never gets detailed. Change means "change the person" for feelies, who claim to have Clinton/Bush fatigue. For do-ies, change means "change policies and actions". By talking past each other in not defining change, they can avoid offending when its not what the voter wants to hear.
Feelies tend to be gen-X/Y, do-ies are boomers/silent gen. One is cynical of any actions, the other is desperate for them.
The incredible bias shown by the 麻豆官网首页入口 in favour of Hillary Clinton is laughable at best and seriously undermines your credibility. Obama has plenty of substance, and his positions are well documented in papers that he has written. They are widely available for perusal on his website.
The change that he is campaigning for is very important to a lot of people. They want to bridge the divide between Americans and actually get things done. I see nothing wrong with that. To deride this is about as un-American as anything I can imagine. Hillary Clinton is a very bright woman, but it takes more than shrewdness and intelligence to herald this nation. More importantly, she just does not come across as having a genuine deep-seated stance on anything. This is the change that Obama and McCain are advocating. Stand up for what you believe in, don't be afraid to make hard choices, even if they will cost you politically. That, is what the Presidency should be about, and that is what the US is trying to get back.
I must that the issue of experience is made much to of for Mrs. Clinton. I would say that Obama and Cliton have about the same experience, seeing how they are both serving their first term as Sentors. I don't see how one can count being First Lady as experience given that the First Lady has no power, and the only thing Clinton did was failure. I would say that if my top issue was experience, i would pick Edwards. Since, he has servered mutliple terms as a Sentor and ran for Vice President. Though, since I am a Republican I won't be voting for any of them in the primaries.
Thank you Justin Webb. At last, thanks to Hillary Clinton, the pendulum is moving back in favour of "grown-up politicians" - when it is obvious that the American public are rejecting the insubstantial and inconsequential message spouted by the Obama campaign and seeing sense in the 35 years' experience of enacting change that Clinton has.
Perhaps we can get a similar leader back in charge of the Conservative opposition and actually effect our own change over here. The American electorate has seen through Barack Obama and finally the media is itself beginning to acknowledge that it is sense and not sensibility we need to see in government on both sides of the Atlantic.
Regarding the man who directs traffic at your school, if he is a part time crossing guard, then I'm sure he doesn't qualify for insurance by his employer, but I'm sure he does qualify for Medicaid or Medicare. So why didn't you mention this? I get the distinct impression by some of the comments here that people in the U.K. don't realize that we have several gov't healthcare programs, Medicaid for the poor, Medicare for the elderly and disabled, Schips for children under 21, and numerous other programs. But, none of these programs are really as good as what people get with independent insurance, because the gov't is always looking for the cheapest way to care for people. So why we would want everyone in the U.S. being taken care of by the gov't is beyond me. I say we offer some sort of program that fills in the gaps for people who are currently without coverage, but don't create another giant gov't program that becomes impossible to pay for and manage. We are already in up to our necks with a Social Security program on the brink of failure and with no real solution even in the works.
Change鈥mmm. Changing what? The political system, the governmental system, electoral system, employment system even the health system? Change means many different things to many different people. By not actually defining 鈥渨hat change鈥 is, plays to the voter. Since they all think that the change is personally directed to them and their needs. The word change invokes so much, despite being not defined.
For some 鈥溾.it seems like there's an MRI on every street corner of every town in the US鈥︹
But as always, the reality is less than what 鈥渁ppears鈥. Japan, by a long way, has the greatest number of CT and MRI machines per capita.
Luxemburg spends nearly twice as much as the US on public health. The US spends as much on private health as it does no public health. The amount it spends on private health is more than the total UK expenditure. The UK spends as much on public health care as the US. Only Greece, Korea, and Mexico has the same 50-50 ratio of spending on public to health as the US, per capita. And on it goes鈥
But isn鈥檛 this playing to the 鈥渃hange鈥. Some think the health system doesn鈥檛 need changing but others do. Some think that islamofascism needs changing, others don鈥檛. Some want change just for change sake鈥..Just say 鈥渃hange鈥..and you鈥檒l get the vote.
But not forgetting of course the old adage 鈥渋f it aint broke, don鈥檛 fix it鈥濃. Is everyone in the US saying it 鈥渁int broke鈥? Regardless of one definition of change, it certainly appears that change, in any form, is needed.
Now, John McCain is running on the ticket of no change in Iraq. He is happy if we are there for the rest of his life, or the next 50 years.
At this point in time he leads the other Republican candidates, but he also leads both Clinton and Obama in many polls. So do the voters here really want change ?
We do like the word. Has a good feel to it.
Think I might change the 5.8 litre Titan pickup for a 7 litre Ford pickup. I keep getting told I should do something for global warming. So that's my contribution to change.
I agree we do need change. Washington is broken. However, the sweep of Democrats into Washington DID NOT bring change. All it brought was more party politics, stagnation, egos, bi-partisan no go zones and the American people are fed up with the lack of maturity in office. Some have been there too long. In the long and short run, it is not about the party it is all about the nation and its people. Washington has forgotten our basics.