View Openings
View Resumes
Featured Partner
Grand Central Political Magazine
Change Begins In the Mirror -- Not In The Voting Booth
By Warren Alexander
2008 has become the year of change. Each candidate--Mitt Romney, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama--embraces the notion that their presidency will not be politics as usual.
To voters, the calls for change in Washington are ever more prevalent. A RealClearPolitics poll average of Congressional approval is at 22%, while the President is not faring much better at 34%. Distrust of our two-party system has grown considerably.
As a result, the media has become snarkier. Lou Dobbs, Keith Olbermann, Bill O'Reilly and Chris Matthews all display unrelenting cynicism of the government status quo on their nightly cable shows. Issues such as the pre-surge mishandling of the War in Iraq, excessive spending, presidential and congressional scandals, and illegal immigration all garner leading segments and harsh words by politcal pundits across the board.
But there's a pattern here. Do we rememember in 2000 when President Bush declared that he was a uniter not a divider? In 2006, didn't the Democrats declare their congress to be the most ethical ever, even though their house speaker nominated John Murtha, noted for involvement in a bribery scandal, to be majority leader?
The sad reality is the notion of "change" in the political world is merely a slogan and now is contrary to its originial meaning. "Change" has become politics as usual.
In 2008. The candidates are no different. John McCain and Hillary Clinton are Washington D.C. McCain, years back, vied for campaign finance reform to level the playing field for candidates in elections. Unfortunately, his bill backfired. Extremist 527 groups funded by wealthy donors such as George Soros found loopholes in the bill, allowing for more money then ever to seep into the campaign process.
In the 1990s, Bill Clinton declared the era of big government was over. Now his wife wants to expand it by billions of dollars of entitlements such as nationalized healthcare.
As for Barack Obama, he isn't change. He's classic left-wing ideology smoke-screened by celebrity-appeal and mainstream media favoritism. He's for the expansion of the federal government at the expense of the average American. Dependence in government would be higher than ever.
Perhaps the problem is not only with politicians, who are merely abiding by their own nature, which is to win and quench their desire for power. The problem also lies in each of us, who place way too much faith in government rather then ourselves. The inevitability is this: government fails you and overdependence on it will only lead to your disappointment in its participants and the system behind it.
Many of the problems that plague this country are not because of politicians. Gas prices are obviously excessive now, but it was our choice to drive cars of low fuel-efficency instead of taking alternative forms of transportation more frequently. The subprime crisis did not start because of the failures of politicians. It was not Washington's fault you allowed yourself to get suckered into owning a home you couldn't afford, nor was it their fault your loved one volunteered to join the military and knew he could very well be killed in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Republican, Democrat or Independent, we still should take the responsibility for who we elect, and what we choose to believe. We shouldn't buy into the notion that a politician can make your decisions better than you can make them. Placing too much faith in the political endorsements from media personalities such as Oprah, and in the decisions of politicians who wear the "change" label, only opens a pandora's box that will lead to the 2012 election recycling the same voter disdain and slogans of 2008.
----------
Warren Alexander, a 2006 alum from the University of Washington, is a freelance blogger, and creative and cultural writer currently residing in Seattle, WA.