Tag: Political Change

“Change You Can Believe In”

Inkwell Institute

The College of Political Knowledge

Professor’s Classroom

Subject:  Government/Political Theory

Paper #23

ch-ch-changes…as the song goes……

That was the slogan for the Obama campaign…….that was the selling point for the Dems in 2008…..a vote for Dems would change the course of government and the country…..well sports fans….how did that work out?

There is the conserv change….and the libs change…..and the change that moderates want……but what is it really….change for the sake of change is not change…it is just going through the motions and hoping NO one will notice…..

Change is an interesting yet subjective term….and for that reason it is perfect for a politician to use in their campaign….and is the perfect attack slogan also…why?  Again it is subjective and can be used in a detrimental way to mean something undesirable and foreign.

What you say, Professor?

Just what types of change can there possibly be?

You ask for it!  First I will begin with Radical Change……this is the desire for immediate and fundamental change.  Followers are frustrated and impatient and at times revolutionary in their desire…..they can become violent or not.  (This is pretty much what many see as the definition of change and this is what they want)

Then there is the Liberal Change……..this is the desire for rapid far reaching change they differ from radical change followers in that they believe that improvements can be made through reason…..

Next is the Moderate view of Change……..these followers are fairly content with society and will tolerate a slow and gradual shift or change…(this is where most Americans are at…they vote for change but they will wait and see….any movement is seen as a win)

Conservative Change…….actively challenges any alteration in the status quo…It is very pessimistic about human capacity to improve life through the use of reason.  These depends on “tried and true” institutions and actions…….(here is where the modern GOP falls…..look at their alternative programs…they are just re-hashes from the past…”tried and true”, at least in their eyes.

Finally there is the Reactionary Change…….these followers want things to be as they were in the past….but they seldom define what that means or how far back they want to return….similar to the “radical change” they suffer from frustration when things do not go their way and could possibly resort to violence to get their way.  The Tea Party, at least parts of it, seem to be this type of change…they keep referring to the Founders and the past as examples of where they want to go and the change they want.

As I instructed you…there is change and then there is CHANGE….but which is for you?  Are you a radical or a moderate?  If you want change be sure to know what type of change you are trying to impose….it could bite you and society in the ass.

Scott Brown–New Style Politician

From the VOMITORIUM

Remember the day the Scott Brown won the special election in Massachusetts to replace the dead Sen. Kennedy?  He was the Tea Party candidate that was gonna change Washington….he was this new style politician….a true moderate that would do what he promised and in turn would change the way business was being done in Washington….

The media was all a flutter with his election to the Senate, especially the conservatives on the air….he was a new God to be worshiped because he bucked the system and won the election……

That was then…this is now!

When Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown addressed supporters after his upset victory in January, he declared there would be “no more closed-door meetings or back-room deals by an out-of-touch party leadership.”

After private talks with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd and other top Democrats, Brown scored a series of exemptions from the “Volcker rule” — which would bar certain forms of proprietary trading — a provision pushed by big Massachusetts banks and financial firms, including State Street Corp. and Mass Mutual.Brown insists the changes he sought that would benefit Massachusetts firms were also national in scope, so they would not amount to a carve-out for a special interest back home.

More than a few of his colleagues grumbled at the freshman Republican’s outsize influence over the final stages of the financial reform talks. And several suggested that Brown’s deal making wasn’t very different from what Republicans had lampooned during the health care debate.

A new style politician?  Kinda smells like the same fecal matter that is ALWAYS present in Washington….there you go……change you can believe in….and you were easy enough to believe the crap….happy now?
I have yet to hear the media cover this….that would mean that they would have to admit that they were WRONG…..about Brown and his politics…..and about the vague promise of change…..

You Were Warned About Change (Redux)

Daily Agitator

I am sick of all the Lefties that go on air a bitch that Obama is NOT doing what he promised during the ’08 election process…..the change that he promised…

This is a repost of a piece I wrote on Daily Kos on 25 Feb 2008…..I was whacked on the pee-pee for NOT supporting Obama and now many of those from Kos are on air bitching about the lack of change from Obama….and of course, I thoroughly enjoy saying “I TOLD YOU SO!”

First, I have heard Clinton called a populist and a progressive.  All I can say to that is WTF?  By no stretch of the imagination can she call herself those titles.  Her positions are straight out of the playbook of the DLC and, to use Bill’s terms. if you believe that “I have some land I wanna sell ya”.  But I digress!  Obama has been called a progressive also.  Thinking…thinking…It is possible to use that label, but it will take a bit of an imagination to do so.  I will agree that change is just a word and not necessarily a progressive one.  The belief that one can actually bring about political change is definitely a progressive idea.

We have all heard the diatribes by the Clinton camp on Obama.  The inexperience, hollow promises and not much Congressional success, all are tried to be used against him.  These things are valid to question, but does not preclude failure.  The approach to change will be the indicator to watch.  Will Obama surround himself with people that actually want to change Washington?  Voters need to realize that the positions of Obama during the primary season, will be altered for the general election.  Politicians will be adding and subtracting from the positions until they get a platform they consider to be a winner.

OK, I realize that so far I have said nothing that has not been mentioned in the MSM.  Here is where I will look for the indication of real change. His acceptance speech, if he is nominated, will lay out what direction his administration will follow.  But, IMO, the most telling indicator will be who is chosen to be the vice-president.  Why?  If his Veep is pulled out of the DLC, then he has sold out to this “conservative” organization and any change will be solely symbolic.  Change will NOT occur only reform.  Reform is not what is needed.  Reform is easily overturned and will have little positive effect for the average working stiff.

If Obama is nominated, then watch the convention and watch it closely for there is where you will know if you have been duped.

Take that Nostradamus!

What Happened In The Latest Elections?

Yesterday was the BIG day….well at least for the media pundits that have to justify their existence…….

Oh God!  There has been a wealth of comments and opinions on just what these latest elections have meant……there are those that say it is an indictment of the Dems and their big government stances….then there is those who think it is a resurgence of the GOP….and yet another is that it is those people that voted for Obama and change that are disappointed and are voting against him…..so what are they voting for?

There is the NY-23 and Virginia and New Jersey…..what do they mean?

NY-23 is a no importance election no matter who wins…why?…by 2012 it will no longer exist because of re-redistricting…so whoever wins today will be out a job in 2 years…so who cares?  The Repubs do—they need a win…any win…to make them look like a “real” party again.

Virginia is another scary place, as it was during the Constitution fight, the state ALWAYS votes for the opposite party for governor, whichever party has the White House, they vote for the other party…so this race is a no brainer…..but it makes good fodder for the pundits that have little else to talk about.

And now for New Jersey……this is the only major election that could possibly have some sort of political implications……just what would those be?  Obama and the lot have invested a lot in New Jersey, making numerous trips to try and save Corzine’s butt….if he loses then Obama will lose some political clout….something the Repubs are spending lots of capital on……But remember Corzine seldom got anywhere near 50% approval…unpopular is an understatement…his loss will be explained away in that light…

Now the ones, pundits that is, that have said that Repubs will make in-roads this election because the moderates and independents that voted for Obama and his promise of change,  have not been fulfilled and they will abandon him and the Dems because of that disappointment……

Okay, you want to know what these elections really mean…absolutely NOTHING!  Low turn out….and boredom….that is about it…..

Back in the early days of the 2008 election….I predicted that no matter who wins the election….nothing would change and so far I have been accurate in that prediction….Let me say that one more time for the slow witted….NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE!  And today is NO different…no matter which candidate wins…change will NOT happen!

Can We Explain Washington?

I spent many long hours sitting in my Public Policy class, desperately trying to stay awake or trying to come up with the perfect line for the stunning red head in the tight sweater—oh sorry—I digress.

I recall a policy known as incrementalism, which appears to be what the Obama administration is using.  The admin is trying this attempting to find the prefect balance for a solution to the economic situation the country finds itself in.

I know–what the hell do I mean by incrementalism?  This is a public policy that is a continuation of the previous programs with only incremental modifications or changes.  The policy makers generally accept the legitimacy of established programs and agree to continue the policies.  They accept the legitimacy because of the uncertainty of the consequences of a completely new or different set of policies.  And also because of the heavy investment in some programs precludes any radical change.

Also incrementalism is politically expedient.  It is important for reducing conflict, maintaining stability and preserving the political system.

With all this said–does any of it sound the least bit familiar?  Iraq?  Gitmo?  Bailout?  Etc…etc…etc……  To answer the question–YES it is all too familiar.  If you were voting for sweeping change in Washington, then you should have been reading my stuff from the onset of the election process—I said 2 years ago that no matter who was elected that NO sweeping change would come to Washington.

I do love my job!  Peace Out……