There can be little doubt that “change” is the buzzword of the year.
Barack Obama, the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, is rarely photographed these days without signs featuring the word “change” in the background. His chief rival, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, are both solidly on the “change bandwagon” as well, even if they haven’t figured out how to fit the word “change” into every sentence.
There seems to be a belief that politics is nothing more than a spectator sport, that each of us bears no personal responsibility for how things have gone, or may go in the future. Past collective decisions, such as the entry into the Iraq war, are now viewed as the responsibility of one man, President Bush. It is as though the nation’s memory banks have been wiped clean. Forgotten is the national response to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the subsequent debates in Congress and the United Nations.
Gone, too, are the participation of Congress in the years since and the response of the American people in the re-election of George W. Bush in 2004 or even the election of 2006. Could it be that none of these prior decisions matter?
It appears that all of the past decisions on the nation’s economy, on energy and on health care, in which each one of us played a part, can simply be wiped away in this election year by the simple expedient of saying, “I changed my mind. What happened in the past is not my fault.”
There is something fundamentally wrong with this development and its eager exploitation by political candidates. The years of the Bush administration should have taught the country to be more cautious in the selection of policy preferences. The involvement in the politics of the Middle East, the nation’s dependence on foreign oil, a lack of attention to fiscal policy, the trouble in the housing sector, all suggest a need for greater attention to detail.
Now what we have is a brand of “get-even politics.” What is being peddled today is the notion that where something has gone wrong in the past, it will be enough to simply reverse things. If people have become too well off, it is time to take some of their money. If people are too poor, it is time to give some. If people don’t have health insurance, it is time to provide it. If the war isn’t going well, it is time to end it. If gas prices get too high, lower them.
It may be that some of this over-simplified thinking is inevitable in an election year as candidates over-promise the splendid results their election might produce. Still, some of it seems downright dangerous.
What is most dangerous of all is the underlying notion that the choices facing the country are in any way simple and straightforward.
At a time when it would be nice to find a public appreciation for nuance and detail, one finds instead an almost addled fascination with personality and style more suited to a fashion show than a national election.
It’s time for a change.
Al Knight of Buena Vista (alknight@mindspring. com) is a former member of The Post’s editorial-page staff.
