This is a tricky subject to address. In fact this is my third pass on the subject of CHANGE. My first effort was far too harsh, and my second did not properly cover my concerns and thus ended up in the recycling bin. Additionally, new information came to my attention that I believe is very significant.
Everywhere I go lately I see the word CHANGE. It is the major theme of both political parties, and CHANGE is plastered on every campaign poster, commercial, banner, and background at every televised appearance. In Webster’s Dictionary it says CHANGE is to barter, exchange, to blend, substitute for, replace, etc., etc.
I don’t know about you, but CHANGE is a word that strikes me as really misleading, misused, deceptive, emotional, and really immature. WOW! Let me tell you why I feel that strongly about CHANGE.
Let’s start with the immaturity of CHANGE. Remember when you were young and you always wanted to change everything about yourself and your life. We never wanted to wear the clothes our parents had put out for us, and we wanted to have a crew-cut hair cut when our folks wanted us to have a normal conventional trim. At the same time we thought we knew more than anyone else in the whole wide world, and certainly much more than our parents. Boy did we want CHANGE, but in hindsight that was just damn immature.
Looking back, CHANGE certainly was misleading, deceptive, and emotional back in the 1930’s when Adolph Hitler urged CHANGE for the German people by stressing a renewal of nationalism. After World War l the Allies imposed totally unrealistic and unwarranted restrictions upon the German people with the Treaty of Versailles. The winning Allied Powers wanted to punish the Germans on the theory that they would never be able to fight another War. The terms of the treaty were so restrictive they proved to be fodder for a charismatic orator like Hitler. He rallied his beaten, downhearted people to a socialist dictatorial form of government that resulted in another disastrous defeat in World War ll. Hitler’s misuse of the word CHANGE was a perfect example of my trepidation.
Currently both political parties are keying on CHANGE as a key theme in their campaigns, but in very different and distinctive ways. In both cases, I believe the use of CHANGE is wrong and distorted.
It is the Commander’s opinion that Barack Obama’s use of CHANGE is most deceptive, misleading, dangerous, misused, and it insults the intelligence of the average American voter. I believe that it appeals to the immaturity of the youthful voter who thrives on a desire to rebel against the authority of adult leadership. The use of CHANGE to impressionable, naive young voters is misleading, misdirecting attention away from the real issues. The theme of his campaign also plays upon the poor, under educated voters’ desires for upward mobility when he calls for a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. It is further my opinion that Obama’s call for CHANGE stirs unrest by subtlely playing the race card by promoting class warfare tensions, rich against the poor, entitlement and income redistribution.
Sure we all want Health Care for everyone, but is it realistic to say that it is affordable without rooting out the real cause of excessive health costs and Medicaid and Medicare abuses? Is it not hypocritical to insist upon universal health care for all without addressing the root causes of exorbitant health care spiraling costs? Is it compatible to endorse huge added federal expense and ignore salaries of more than $300,000+ for Vice-Presidents in non-profit hospitals such as Obama’s wife and others are earning? Is it pure coincidence that the University of Chicago non-profit Hospital received a $1 million earmark shortly after Michelle Obama got a pay raise of more than $200,000? What kind of CHANGE in Washington is that?
We all want to pay lower income taxes, but how can anyone honestly say they will lower taxes for 95% of the people when we have constantly increasing, staggering debt. Obama calls for voters to support taking from the rich and giving to the poor and that is looked upon by some people as an emotionally stirring, unrealistic misuse of CHANGE.
Here is a very alarming development that has just come to my attention. A principal point of Obama’s campaign has been his insistence that he will not and does not accept campaign money from lobbyists. I urge you to read the October 2008 issue of Conde Nast’s Portfolio magazine, and Matthew Cooper’s revealing article “The Audacity of Hype”. Obama’s campaign lies, because they accept campaign contributions from lobbyist’s wives and lobbyist’s lawyers. This is a very revealing piece of information and reflects poorly against Obama’s theme calling for CHANGE.
Please do not hold your breath waiting for the New York Times or NBC to address this story forward.
John McCain is loosely throwing CHANGE around in his campaign too. I need not remind you that your Commander knows Senator John McCain well, because he has been in McCain’s offices in Phoenix, Tucson and Washington, and the Senator has been in the Commander’s office, too (before my retirement). That does not give the Senator a free pass from the Commander though, because I think he, too, is misleading the potential voter when he says “I will CHANGE Washington.”
McCain is a man of great integrity and certainly an American Hero, but he is misleading, and he must think we are damn fools the way he talks about CHANGE. No one, including John McCain, can go to Washington, and make substantial CHANGE when if elected he will have a dominant Democratic House and Senate opposing every single initiative he proposes. No matter who is in the White House, it is the House and Senate that passes the legislation. The President can propose and accomplish some things within his specific powers, but he cannot pass legislation without Congressional approval. If McCain were president, he could direct his Cabinet Secretaries to enforce measures that could reduce excessive abuse within the system. Unless by some unforeseen development the coming Congressional makeup will be Democratic, and probably veto proof which would take the ink out of his veto quill. Thus McCain too is misusing, misleading, and deceptive when he says he is going to CHANGE Washington.
The older we get, the more we all tend to resist CHANGE, and I believe that is a good situation for mankind, and especially our youth. Years of experience should not be ignored, but history has proven again and again that maturing experience and education matters.
I urge you to remember the words of the President Thomas Jefferson when he said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have”.
Your Commander urges you to be cautious in your use of the word CHANGE, and to be leery when any politician calls for CHANGE. It is appropriate to remember the expression “Change for change sake”, which is really immature and devious. Remember the expression, “Adapt or perish?” It is my suggestion that we consider the insertion of ADAPTATION before we call for CHANGE, because it requires consideration, consultation, reconsolidation, realism, and hopefully objectivity without emotion. Doesn’t bi-partisanship require ADAPTATION?
Are you as tired as I am of the petty political bickering and name calling going on daily by our candidates? Negativity rules and the issues are blurred by the smoke. Where is the leadership that will solve our problems and lead us to our desired and required accomplishments? This campaign is not really about them, but about us and addressing THE PEOPLE’S NEEDS.