Will Change Do Us Good?

January 8, 2008

 

I don’t know about you but I’ve lost count trying to keep up with how many times the Democrat presidential candidates have used the word “change” in recent weeks.  Apparently, that’s the big buzz word the consultants have instructed them to use.  But what does it mean?  It means what we’re doing right now as a country is not working.  The fact is we’re doing pretty darn well as a country.

 

Average hourly earnings for American workers have steadily increased over the last 7 years.  The unemployment rate, which had spiked after 9/11 to 6 percent, declined since then to 4.4 in 2006.  It has ticked back up to 5 percent recently but that’s considerably lower than its post-recession high.  Productivity has enjoyed a steady increase since the Bush administration, as well.

 

Perhaps they mean change in Iraq.  December saw one of the lowest casualty rates since the war began.  You’ll notice you don’t hear a lot from the mainstream media about Iraq these days.  That’s because good news is bad news for the Dems.  The war well the Democrats have gone to so many times may very well be dried up come summer.  What will they harp on then?

 

Well, you’re seeing it right now.  Change.  That esoteric catchphrase is purposely enigmatic.  Like the Democrat party itself, it means all things to all people.  Like the party, it is devoid of substance.  IOUs of ambiguity occupy the place where substantive policy used to reside.  The Democrats are experiencing an identity crisis.  They cast their lot with a losing war.  Now that our fortunes in Iraq have turned, theirs have, too, but for the worse.

 

The question is, how long can they continue to fool the people with their call for change?  Hillary Clinton leads the change charge, a notion so absurd as to be laughable.  Her gloomy stage of defeat in Iowa, adorned with her husband and Madeleine Albright, screamed anything but change.  Change to Hillary is going back to the inept policies and politicians of her husband’s administration.  I seriously doubt if that’s what the American people have in mind.

 

One alternative, then, is Barack Obama.  At least he’s offering real change.  He’s certainly likeable enough and there’s not even a hint of scandal around him, which is refreshing.  However, change according to Obama is socialized medicine, turning and running from the terrorists in Iraq, further government takeover of your child’s education, and further government regulation of energy, which always drives up prices.  All this from a guy who has a grand total of 3 years experience in the U.S. Senate.

 

John Edwards’ vision of change would be even more disastrous.  He believes the pharmaceutical companies that develop life-saving drugs are the enemy of the American people instead of ambulance-chasing trial lawyers like him who drive up the cost of everything by suing at the drop of a hat.  He, like the others, believes in socialized medicine and emboldening our enemies by running like a scalded dog from Iraq.

 

That’s certainly not to say that the Republicans are perfect.  Except for Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson, I fear the Republican slate of candidates will only make our illegal immigration problem worse.  But, there’s not one issue, including illegal immigration that the Democrats wouldn’t make 10 times worse if they were elected.

 

Change is great when something needs to be changed.  Tax cuts were change and they saved us from a prolonged recession.  Fighting the terrorists was a change in policy but it was necessary to secure the country.  Let’s be careful not to change just for change’s sake.