What Do They Mean By “Change”?

When you use a the same word over and over again it starts to lose it meaning. Some do this with the word “love” or the word “awesome.”

While watching the ABC/facebook debate Saturday night, I noticed that the Dems kept using the word “change.” I did a simple word find from the transcripts from the debate and the word “change” was said 93 times. Here are some examples:

OBAMA:

And part of what we need to do in changing our foreign policy is not just end the war in Iraq; we have to change the mindset that ignores long- term threats and engages in the sorts of actions that are not making us safe over the long term.

CLINTON: Well, let me say, first, that I think we’re all advocating for change. We all want to change the status quo, which is George W. Bush and the Republican domination of Washington for so many years.

And we all are putting forth ideas about how best to deliver that change.

But I don’t think you make change by, you know, calling for it or by demanding it…

EDWARDS: Let me just say a quick word about this.

We have a fundamental difference about the way you bring about change. But both of us are powerful voices for change.

And if I might add, we finished first and second in the Iowa caucus, I think in part as a result of that.

Now, what I would say this: Any time you speak out powerfully for change, the forces of status quo attack. That’s exactly what happens.

It’s fine to have a disagreement about health care. To say that Senator Obama is having a debate with himself from some Associated Press story I think is just not — that’s not the kind of discussion we should be having.

EDWARDS: And what we have to remember — and this is the overarching issue here, because what we really need in New Hampshire and in future state primaries, is we need an unfiltered debate between the agents of change about how we bring about that change. Because we have differences about that.

But the one thing I do not argue with him about is he believes deeply in change. And I believe deeply in change.

And any time you speak out — any time you speak out for change, this is what happens.

CLINTON: Well, making change, making — wait a minute. Now, wait a minute. I’m going to respond to this.

Because obviously — obviously making change is not about what you believe. It’s not about a speech you make. It is about working hard.

I want to make change, but I’ve already made change. I will continue to make change. I’m not just running on a promise of change. I’m running on 35 years of change.

So, you know, I think it is clear that what we need is somebody who can deliver change. And we don’t need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered. The best way to know what change I will produce is to look at the changes that I’ve already made.

Every candidate talks about change (even the Republicans…44 times), but one thing I found in my simple analysis, is that when the Democrats talk about change, that’s as far as they go. Change is undefined by the Democrats. Change is the thing the Democrats are running on….change what….I don’t know….they never say. It’s just change.

When the Republicans speak of change, most times it is describing a specific issue or policy. In fairness, Romney, McCain, and Giuliani use the term “change” in the same way the Democrats do, but not nearly as often.

I think it is a safe thing to assume that if the Democrats are going to truly bring about change, it won’t be for a smaller government, lower taxes, or more freedoms for the American people. So does change mean larger government, higher taxes and less freedom? I think so. I think it is also correct to assume that the changes the Democrats will try to bring will be on the side of more liberal polices…they certainly are not drifting to the right. Our current President has difficulties drifting to the right.

The word I would like to have heard from both sides is “leadership.” Now there’s a word that needs no additional explanation.

Maybe will it take another Carter to get another Reagan.

tvd

It is the same thing most Democrats and even some Republicans do, they try and take a neutral term and turn it into a virtue. Take for example the word "choice." For years many have been trying to prop that term up as a blessed freedom and liberty, but choice is not a virtue in and of itself. It is the choice that you make that is either virtuous or destructive, not your ability to choose. So goes with "change."

Micah

Lord Jesus, please save us from another Reagan. We'll know for sure the apocalypse is now.

I'm curious: I hear people who feel the need to tout the "conservative" perspective often refer to more "freedoms?" More freedom for what?

svandyke

Well, freedom to:
1) worship...the God, the Father of the Lord Jesus you mention above in your comment
2) do what you wish with the money you earn
3) go to the doctor when and where you want
4) light up

But the intent of the post was to hear from some folks about what Democratic "change" means...but I am curious when liberals feel the need to "change" the subject instead of responding to the original idea.

Maybe I answered my own question about what "change" means....the subject.

Micah

I was unaware that freedom was required for worship; I was also unaware that our freedom to worship was threatened, unless you think "happy holidays" instead of "merry christmas" on the sign at the mall is a threat to our worship, in which case, well, .....

I changed the subject because I know better than to think too long on what politicians say in speeches (except Obama, who is an amazing speaker and would be a great preacher).

I think lots of people are for the freedom to go to the doctor when and where they want; I was unaware that our current administration had made that possible for anyone. In fact, I'm aware that for most people, little choice exists at all, and for lots of people, the only choice is the ER. Maybe that needs to "change".

Beyond paying bills, I don't really care about money, so I have no comment. I for one remember what Jesus was holding in his hand when he said "render unto ceasar what is ceasar's" and whose inscription it bore.

I'm all for restricting smoker's "rights." So, nice try, but no dice.

svandyke

Big surprise, we don't agree on anything,
but...

"I changed the subject because I know better than to think too long on what politicians say in speeches"...

...words mean things. You can't "change" that. Words may be ignored or explained as something else, but words have meaning, but that's what I don't get....what does change mean to Democrats?

Jo Ellen

I don't know what change means to democrats, besides change in the way we are fighting this war, change in the way we do health care, change in the way we educate our children. All of this, I suspect, is what all candidates lay out when they talk about policy plans.

Words don't have self-evident meanings. "Leadership," for example, doesn't simply mean one thing; it takes a community of folks with common convictions to act out what that means. For example, I suspect most conservatives mean, frankly, "manliness" when they say leadership--the notion that strength and acumen are essential to, say, fighting a war, or in dealing with folks like Iran.
Christians, on the other hand, would primarily see leadership measured against Jesus, who, despite what that idiot John Eldridge would have us believe, was anything but "manly." He was weak, he was willing to die, and that becomes its own type of strength.

All to say that I tend to agree that most politicians offer up mostly meaningless things in most speeches. I don't think you can expect much else. That's not to discount the importance of words; I agree that they are vitally important. I'm all for a revival in political speech that has folks actually trying to say something that has meaning. I'm just not that hopeful, and given the power of what the church could be saying, don't see much in wanting to hear more from politicians.

fun stuff! :)

svandyke

"I don’t think you can expect much else."....
this is where we differ. I do expect much else. Generations before us had leaders, and their words meant things
"I have a dream"
"Tear down this wall"
"The only thing to fear"
...and I expect that for my generation, too. I do have hope.

And usually when you "find a community of folks with commons convictions" you will almost definitely find a leader, whether it's a preacher, a mayor, or a housewife....groups of people don't lead themselves....leaders lead and followers follow.

Brent

Perhaps it takes a Bush to get an Obama

Jo Ellen

if you mean after 8 years of bumbling idiocy we finally deserve a speaker who is inspiring, then Bush may have been worth it. But, I'm skeptical.

Leaders lead and followers follow...you should pitch that to Faux News. Where do leaders lead? Or, more importantly for Christians, How do leaders lead? If they follow the example of Christ (which, I know, is a crazy idea), then they lead by serving incarnationally--that is, becoming like the people they hope to lead. This is why most models of leadership are so disappointing, because most leadership sets itself apart from the "followers." And this is why, despite what people who write dumb books about "Jesus, CEO" want us to believe, you can't lead unless you are at least as humble as the people you hope to lead. You lead the poor by becoming poor, you lead workers by being a worker, you lead students by being a student, etc. Given the disparity between the average hourly worker and the average executive, the business model (which is clearly the dominant model of leadership) is, to be blunt, nothing like the leadership of Christ. Housewives, especially those who give up careers and ambitions to change diapers and keep house, are perhaps a better example, which is why, as I've maintained in practice and rhetoric, the real "manly" thing for men to do is stay at home and learn to clean and care for small children, and encourage their wives professional gifts in the process.

svandyke

To Brent:
Touche'.

tvd

Jo Ellen,
I think you might have just hit the nail on the head, and in case that term is too "manly", i.e. not Christ-like, let me say that you have "warmed the baby formula to its perfect temperature". Just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Anyway, avoiding all the many minefields throw out there by this thread and trying to get to back to the original poin, I think you have illustrated for us what democrats mean by change. For example, to quote you:

"I don’t know what change means to democrats, besides change in the way we are fighting this war, change in the way we do health care, change in the way we educate our children. All of this, I suspect, is what all candidates lay out when they talk about policy plans."

The, dare I say, genius of the Democratic nominees are that the way the use the word "change" allows their supporters to infer whatever they want. The above quotes from the candidates aren't talking about "policy" change, just "change." You, Jo Ellan, suspect that it means one thing while another supporter can suspect it means something totally different. It is a veritable buffet. So, if you are a teacher, change can mean more money for you, if you are a environmentalist, change can mean more restrictions on corporations, for PETA, change means legislative vegetarianism. Whatever you want someone to change, that's what it means right now. I suspect they use the term so loosely so that they can get the most support for it.

I am sure that once a nominee is named we will see in more detail what they mean by change and I suspect too that it will mean all the things you think it means, Jo Ellen.

As for all the other things in this thread all I can say is "Wow!"

Micah

That was Micah; I just didn't change the name.

ktownlowdown.comRight Here for the Low Down in KTOWN