March of the Change Agents

By now it’s clear that the official word of 2008 is change.  Tonight’s Democratic debate in New Hampshire was a grand spectacle of self-righteous political dishonesty with former Senator John Edwards and Senator Barack Obama proclaiming themselves the Change Agents as if they were responding to a wanted ad in the Pious Times.

Even with the unconcealed nightly endorsements of Chris Mathews and the stunning support of Iowans on their sides, America’s Change Agents will have some serious explaining to do to the rest of America’s voters.  Candidates Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson, whose experience arguments loomed in the Caucuses Thursday night like cold corpses injected with the Plague, stressed the importance of hiring a capable leader who is more prepared to start implementing the “change” prescribed by the Change Agents.  According to Clinton and Richardson, it takes experience to deliver change, not eloquent and foundationless rhetoric.

What is change?  It’s certainly not the ongoing natural phenomenon that leaves astronomers in awe.  All of the Democratic candidates accept that change starts at least with the rejection of and departure from the Status Quo, which is a fancy word for The Policies of George W. Bush.  For John Edwards, the Status Quo more specifically pertains to the Culture of Corruption (which presumable includes only the Congressmen who remained in the Senate after 2004).  Washington, according to Edwards, faces certain doom unless someone (guess who?) is able to fight the Special Interests (Big Business?) who still hold sway over Congressmen.  If this stranglehold is not dismantled, the middle class and illness-stricken women and children will pay dearly.

But enough doom and gloom.  As true and unfortunate as Edwards’ observations are, Americans refuse to hear it framed so explicitly.  Enter Barack Obama, who intended to deliver that message to the American people with the aid of a fabric softener:  Hope.  Obama sees the Status Quo as Congressional and Executive gridlock mixed with the threat of unbridled lobbyists that prevents government from getting “the job” done, whatever that job may be.  I somewhat agree with Obama, though I believe in gridlock, much like our nation’s founders did.  I believe that the majority of Washington lobbyists operate more often than in contradiction to the best interests of Americans.  But when the good lobbyists breakthrough and succeed in their efforts, Americans surely benefit.

But I see something differently that most Americans.  I see the underlying purpose of the Change Agents’ hope-driven messages.  What they won’t tell Americans—and what most Americans don’t care to uncover—is that the true definition of change in 2008 is inexperience.  I take notice of how the word change has been inflated by those candidates whose government experience is at best unremarkable and at worst minimal.  And remember that good experience in government is a good thing.  You would never consider hiring a carpenter who brags about his inexperience to remodel your bathroom.  Would you?  He could tell you all about his hopes and dreams of doing a good job remodeling your bathroom all he wants, but you would never seriously consider him unless you were flat broke.  Government is the same way.  Even though in an ideal world anyone could serve in public office, it’s an important job that should not be filled lightly.

What about unremarkable and minimal experience?  John Edward’s experience borders on unremarkable if you disregard his vote for the Iraq War resolution.  He was a successful attorney but unprepared to deal with the monotonous work of a dusty legislature.  Likewise, Obama came to the Senate with minimal government experience but his enthusiasm and passion for the issues of Americans set him up for a promising tenure.  Soon after his election, Obama embarked on a few legislative measures to build up his credentials only to forfeit his promises to his constituents in Illinois and announce his candidacy for the presidency just a few years into his first term.  It seemed a little premature and that Obama knew that his time in the spotlight would diminish while confined in the dreary Senate halls.  But I guess some stars aren’t meant to be caged.

With his lightweight credentials in hand, Obama disregarded the rest of Senate term, including several key votes regarding U.S. foreign policy, and shifted his attention to recruiting prominent Democratic strategists to begin plotting his presidential campaign.  Their challenge was to take a one-hit wonder of a politician with very little meaningful government experience and transform him into presidential material, downplaying experience and focusing attention on what he does best, selling hopes and dreams to sleepless people.  As we learned in 2000 with George W. Bush’s campaign of hope and minimal experience, Americans eat that sort of rhetoric like cheese.

What is troubling is how Americans are once again setting themselves up for disappointment by supporting Obama.  Even more troubling is Obama’s personal transformation; he seems to have built up his new persona the point that he is now believing his own sales pitch.  He is starting to sound more like a god to be worshiped than a candidate to be elected.  It’s unclear who Obama is trying to be, JFK or Martin Luther King.  I see Jimmy Carter.

As for John Edwards, I believe his presidential ambitions will come to an unremarkable end next Tuesday in New Hampshire.  We will be left with two candidates, Hillary Clinton with her “change by experience” campaign and Barack Obama with his “change by hope” campaign.  I wonder what Bill Clinton is doing these days...