The Politics of Change

In today’s fluid political climate buzzwords are used to evoke an emotional response. Among the rhetoric used in today’s general election are words such as celebrity, surge, evangelical and maverick. But no word or phrase has had the same bearing as change.
In the presidential election year of 1992 George Bush, seeking a second term, ran against Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas. Clinton was seen as a maverick, a forty-six tear old saxophone playing maverick nonetheless. He was supposed to turn the establishment on its ear with the change he planned to implement. Bush was seen as a continuation of failed policies and a fractured government. Clinton won in ’92 and again in ’96.
In the first presidential election of our new millennium George Bush, Governor of Texas, ran against Vice President Al Gore. The public perception at the time was that Mr. Bush was a welcome change a breath of fresh air for a scandalous White House. Al Gore was seen as an extension of the Clinton years. Needless to say, in the year 2000 George W. Bush became the President of the United States. He dubbed himself as a vessel of change, and, from Bill Clinton, he was. Bush appeared to be everything one could want in a president, he was Yale educated, had military experience, was the son of a former president and was a genuinely likeable guy. He promised to bring honor to the White House, enable free trade, promote government reform, leave no child behind and be a uniter, not a divider. Sadly no one saw the obvious hint before us; uniter is not a word in any legitimate dictionary.
There is an obvious pattern that has taken place in the American election system. It is that people want change, not just a change of the people in charge, but a change of policy and philosophy. This is where we find the reason as to why the word change has such an effect on voters. It is that they find comfort in change. Shocking right? In normal social circumstances change can be uneasy, but when it comes to... [continues]

Read full essay