Politicians Pledge Change, Electorate Defines it

Clearly aware of the inconsistencies between the peculiar institution of slavery and the theology that was forced down their throats by their masters, African slaves would often voice their critique in song. One such song stated: "Everybody talkin' about heaven aint going there."

Could we not apply a similar critique to those running for president? Everybody talkin' about change aint sayin' the same thing.

The 2008 campaign is being branded as the "Year of Change," but what exactly does that mean?

I called a friend the other day to conduct one of my infamous non-scientific polls. I asked him, "What does change mean in this year's election?" After initially responding with, "I don't know," he rather smugly said, "It depends on what the meaning of change is."

Change clearly seems to fit the mood of the country, it seems every candidate, regardless of party, has made it part of their stump speech--its focus-tested approved, safe for children--but its definition is as varied as the number of candidates that use the term.

Ironically, everyone running for president is within the safe confines of the status quo. To this end, no one is proposing radical transformation. At least during the primary season, there is no change being proposed that is going to cause undue discomfort.

Any discussion of political change tends to fall into two categories: tangible and intangible. Tangible change is found within the framework of government. Legislation passed like Social Security or the Great Society programs or constitutional amendments that abolished slavery or gave women the right to vote have definitely made meaningful change in people's lives.

This type of political change has its limitations. There is no question that Lyndon Johnson's legislative record in Congress and as president dwarfs that of John Kennedy.

But how often do you hear someone was inspired to public service because of Johnson? Former President Bill Clinton openly talks of how Kennedy was his inspiration to run for office.

The change that Kennedy offered to a generation was more of an intangible nature. In his 1962 speech when affirming that humans would land on the moon before the end of decade, Kennedy stated:

"Many years ago the great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest, was asked why did he want to climb it. He said, "Because it is there.' Well, space is there, and we're going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there."
The money wasn't there nor the initial timetable that Kennedy proposed, as the tape recording of a 73-minute meeting between the president and NASA Administrator, James Webb bears witness. This, however, had no impact on a nation ready for the type of intangible change Kennedy provided.
Comparing tangible and intangible change--offering one as superior to the other is a false choice. Hillary Clinton was guilty of such an infraction this week.
In juxtaposing the difference between her understanding of change and that of Barack Obama, Clinton said, "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act...It took a president to get it done."

Conflating tangible with intangible change may make political points, but it severely misses the point. With all due respect to Johnson, were Tiananmen Square protestors inspired by King's vision or Johnson's legislation? Anti-Apartheid forces in South Africa drank from the intangible well dug by King's lived witness for change, not the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The inherent flaw with our political definitions of change is its dependence on the electorate. Whether change is based on legislative achievements, inspired vision, or new policy ideas, only the electorate can define it.

In this country's brief history, tangible and intangible change has had a significant role to play. However change is defined in 2008, it will be based on the candidate who offers change in a key similar to the one that a majority of the electorate sings in this particular election cycle.

Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist.
E-mail him at [e-mail] or leave a message
at 510-208-6417.

Follow Byron Williams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/byronspeaks