On change

It’s getting overused as a word. It’s just embarrassing how many otherwise serious political folks are latching onto to it with a sense of purpose, as if analyzing some new civilizational cult and studying its appeal.

Since it’s a trend, let’s analyze it a bit. A visual and political essay on it would up on the front page of the Chicago Tribune today.

It has become the political version of the Gregorian chant. Candidates from both parties repeat it endlessly. Campaign operatives bleat it mindlessly. High school gyms commandeered for rallies seem to bounce and throb with it.

But what does the word “change” really mean? Is it more than just an empty slogan — the “equivalent of a smiley-face,” as conservative columnist John O’Sullivan complains?

It’s good to raise the questions, instead of just falling into the trap the it must mean something exciting.

“Change has been a huge question since the very beginning of Western thought,” says H. Peter Steeves, associate professor of philosophy at DePaul University. “Socrates and Aristotle thought change was one of the biggest problems we ever have to solve. What remains stable? Change is built into the very ontology — the very being — of the world.”

Change is not always positive.

Yet being able to exploit voters’ desire for change while still respecting their comfort with tradition and stability is a subtle and exacting political art. Incumbents in most offices are difficult to defeat, because the “Stay the course” mantra has a powerful hold on the human psyche. Too much change, too fast, can be frightening.

So before you give candidates high marks for advocating change, remember:

“The question that needs to be asked is, ‘Change to what?'” declares Michael Fauntroy, assistant professor of public policy at George Mason University, who writes often about his reservations about Obama’s “change” message. “Challengers always run on the notion of change — it’s in the electoral lexicon — but I don’t think the electorate is clear on the concept. 

O’Sullivan, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who worked for Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in his native Britain, says, “Actually, the word ‘change’ is utterly vacuous. It tells you nothing about content. Hitler ran on a program of change. Mussolini ran on a program of change.”

Ask questions. “Change what?”

The genuine riddles of change, however, long predate 21st Century elections. As Steeves notes, the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus pointed out that one cannot step in the same river twice; the moment passes, never to return, and all is altered. Change is inevitable. Yet to Socrates’ way of thinking, Steeves says, some things must remain stable and eternal.

So there’s a question for the candidates. Who stands for values that are and must remain stable, and who sees them as eternal?