It's Not Change, Stupid

CBS's Meyer: "Change" Was Not The Force The Political Elite Thought It Was

(CBS)  This commentary was written by CBSNews.com's Dick Meyer.

---

For all the breast-beating and soul-searching being performed by the political elite over why we so badly blew predicting Hillary Clinton’s New Hampshire resurrection, we actually blew something much bigger: understanding the central dynamic of the presidential election.

After Iowa, poll readers, pundits, Republican and Democratic candidates declared the voters wanted “change.” No matter what “change” actually is, no matter that “change” means different things to different people: “change” is what the voters want.

Barack Obama cornered the market on change. After Iowa, John Edwards wanted to get some market share as did Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and John McCain. Hillary stuck with experience. Contrarian pundits mocked Obama for pushing change without beef, unfairly.

The sorry truth is that “change” was merely a phantom conjured by the political elite - a nano-trend, a shorthand, a figment, a wild goose chase.

In 2008, there have been four elections with four winners: Obama, Clinton, Huckabee and McCain. Go ahead: pick an uber-theme that fits all these winners. It ain’t change.

Sure, Obama talks a lot about change and he had a big win. But he also talks about hope, leadership, health care and opportunity. And he also lost New Hampshire.

It was the Iowa exit polls that gave change mega-buzz. Among Democratic primary voters, the most coveted quality in a candidate was the capacity “bring about needed change.” A whopping 52 percent want change. In New Hampshire, it was the same but more so, with 54 percent opting for change in their multiple choice selections.

Well, use some common sense here. The quality that a candidate “can bring about needed change” can mean he/she will get out of Iraq to one voter. It can mean universal health care to another. Or cleaning up campaign finance, invading Iran, curing cancer or restoring the American Way.

In this context change is just a Rorschach test, not a political diagnosis. It is nearly meaningless.

This has happened before, often. After Bush's re-election in 2004, for example, it became instant conventional wisdom that "moral values" were the key to all politics. Strategists and commentators nagged the Democrats for not having good “moral values.” Republicans knew how to talk about “moral values” so they won.

It turned out that “moral values” were completely in the eye of the beholding exit poll answerer, just like “change” this year. Moral values didn’t equate with family values or Christian values. Lo and behold, moral values played absolutely no role in the 2006 mid-term elections that toppled the Republicans from control of Congress.

It would be very smart to get rid of the bogus change theme early in this election year before it perpetrates more muddy thinking.

The focus on a false “change” story, obviously, obscures deeper truths. Obviously, the victories of Obama, McCain and, to a slightly lesser degree, Huckabee, show that business-as-usual isn’t attractive to many voters and they are looking for a new cast of characters - and a new kind of character. But this isn’t a mega-trend, as Clinton’s win shows.

The dynamic to watch this year involves independent and swing voters, those creatures that we were told were extinct in hyper-polarized, red/blue politics in America. So far, 2008 has been the year of the independent voter.

“We were told that there was no longer any middle - swing voters had disappeared,” said Stanford political scientist Morris Fiorina, author of "Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America."

"What's everybody talking about now? Independents. Obama is winning independents, McCain is winning independents. Independents can't figure out whether to vote for a 47-year-old liberal or a 71-year-old conservative. All they know is that they're tired of the choices they've had in recent elections,” said Fiorina.

In New Hampshire, 44 percent of Democratic primary voters and 37 percent of Republicans described themselves as independents. Twenty percent of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers said they were independent.

Fiorina’s point is that independent, swing voters never went away, they just had only highly partisan candidates to choose from. Unhappy with such choices, their votes were evenly divided between two bad options. This resulted in close elections. Analysts mistakenly said this meant America was polarized. It wasn’t. Politicians, activists and candidates were partisan and polarized. Most voters were not. They were pragmatic and open-minded.

These voters are looking for a home in 2008 and they actually have some interesting options. Sure, they want “change” from politicians they don’t like, who doesn’t? The deeper theme is that perhaps the myth of polarization is losing steam. A few candidates are doing what all candidates used to do in the days before culture war and wedge issues: running for the middle where most voters live.

Obama and McCain are appealing to independents. They are trying to use a style and vocabulary that isn’t knee-jerk partisan, that doesn’t demonize all opponents and that isn’t full of coded messages to the parties’ interest groups. It is a style of campaigning the country hasn’t seen for awhile. It may not prevail. So far, anti-polarizing campaigns have won two of four primaries.

The “change” narrative deserves an early funeral. But independent voters, the real silent minority, might commit some real political change this year.

---

E-mail questions, comments, complaints, arguments and ideas to Against the Grain. We will publish some of the interesting (and civil) ones, sometimes in edited form.

[almanojodo]

MITT ROMNEY is Presidential! These are just a few of the obvious reasons Romney is the most electable candidate for the Republican party.
1. He has absolute economic expertise and real world experience creating and holding jobs. He has experience dealing in today''s global marketplace. Without a strong economy, nothing else works. Romney has the know how to grow our economy. Many people consider Romney an economic genius.
2. Romney has a history of ASKING the right questions, LISTENING openly, EVALUATING & ANALYZING carefully and LEADING to effective solutions. He brings new vision, efficiency, and energy to every endeavor
3. Romney has impeccable integrity and high standards. He is absolutely trustworthy
4. Romney stands firmly in support of our constitution. He supports state rights and individual rights.
5. Romney has always been an advocate of education and is committed to innovation in technology. He supports research and development. He is an exceedingly intelligent man! While his was governor his state rank #l in the nation in education.
6. Romney is committed to a strong national defense. He will protect our borders and keep our nation safe. He is also an excellent negotiator.
7. Romney is a self-made man who owes no one favors. He will bring fresh voices and new ideas to the table. Romney can make real change in Washington.
8. Romney is an excellent strategist and can WIN against the democrats!

[knyghtwolf]

All this talk, all the BS being spread around, opinions that if all gathered together would probably heat up a cup of coffee. The solution is very simple, MOTHER NATURE needs to wipe out about 99.9% of the human race and start over with whats left. Those left must learn that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it again and again. Start pushing for NATURAL change and see what happens.

[chad55555]

It''s not change we need,we sure don''t need a Muslim trained president to set this contry into a racial and religious war(claims to be Christian just to get into power,way he was taught)). WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHEN WE WERE GREAT CONTRY AND DECIDE WHERE WE WENT WRONG AND REPAIR THE MISTAKES BEFORE IT''S TOO LATE.Clinton would only cause more damage to a declining country. We had better rethink what America means and stop falling for all the fog and unclear statements we are being feed. WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO WE THE PEOPLE,A COUNTRY OF THE PEOPLE,FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE.OUR DEMONCRATIC PROCESS HAS TURNED INTO A GENDER,RACE ISSUE NOT WHAT"S GOOD FOR AMERICA ISSUE, WE SEEM TO FORGET WHAT PEOPLE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. DIVERSITY IN A NATION WILL DESTROY THAT NATION OVER TIME.STUDY YOUR HISTORY.

[knyghtwolf]

And as we sit here, pondering who we want to lead us, the ONE idiot who has his tongue shoved so far up corporate americas AZZ he can lick the tops of their empty skulls, is over in the middle east, posturing and preening amongst our sons and daughters about his plan for peace. Lord bushwacker is already lining up the next generation of children of his grave for a nuclear war confrontation. Its not OUR way of life he is trying to sell Iraq, its corporate america''s way and that is what they are resisting right now as we sit here and post our feelings. Shrubbie the first is guilty as home-made sin and everyone on the planet knows it, and yet we sit and wait, and wait, and wait, and wait, and wait, and wait....you get the picture, at least I THINK most are capable.

[talk2chief]

If you want real change, then break from your party entirely. Vote Green, Conservative, Independent etc. I don''t care what party, Democrat or Republican, or what candidate your talking about. They are all tainted by Washington politics, inner circles, special interest groups and power. All politicians are liars, most are lawyers, and not a one of them gives a hoot about you. The little people.

[logicanada]

I honestly believe that these ''correspondents'' write an article, read all these posts, and then test the waters with another article.
What ever happened to investigative journalism?

[eshelmon]

"It''s the Crying, Stupid". Doesn''t matter if you believe it was real or fake, that''s the reason for Hilary''s comeback win in NH. "It''s Not Change, Stupid" carries little punch after one primary when Obama was ahead as much as fellow change-monger and NH winner McCain. Romney should have cried too, lol.

[tibu987]

It just goes to show how distant the Republicans and some Democrtas are from the electorate.
Let me give them a clue.

Any available medical insurance is too expensive for the average American.
The immigration problem, while important, should NOT take center stage above all the other problems the average American has.
What we want is "change", yes, change from the old pols responsible for the mess this country is in. A new, fresh outlook that takes into consideration all Americans and not just the wealthy.
We want an end to the war(s) in the Middle East, and our troops to come home.
We want a stronger economy and more jobs.
We want our infrastructure to be safe and well maintained.
We want to have the best schools and teachers for our children.
We want to be safe on our streets.
We want the wishy-washy politicians, purveyors of pork, out of office.
We want to be rid of the staus quo politicians who line their pockets and feed from the public trough.
We demand honesty from our government officials.
I believe those are some of the major issues and needs of the majority of the average voting public, and they get scant attention from the candidates.
Most of the presidential candidates are multi-millionaires that long ago lost touch with the average American and have no inkling about what our needs and sufferings are about.
And that is why Obama is in the lead, he is the only one who has shown some concern for the average American.
''''Nuff said.

[tibu987]

My own experience, having lived out of the country for many years just made me appreciate this country all the more as I believe Obama does.
Here is a message from the press in, I think, 1995:
"I am surprised at how many elected officials-even the good ones-spend so much time thinking about the mechanics of politics and not matters of substance. They have this poker chip mentality, this overriding interest in retaining their seats or in moving their careers forward, and the business and game of politics, the political horse race, is all they talk about. Even those who are the same page as me on the issues never seem to want to talk about them."
That statement by Obama in 1995 says loads about him and his valid use of the word "change".

[tibu987]

And just what is wrong with using "change" as a political tool?
We want a change with the war in Iraq.
We want a change in the tax rate that will tax millionaires as they do the little people.
We want to change the porkmeisters in Washington, the old guard which accomplishes nothing more than the feathering of their own nests.
We want change in the way our schools and teachers are faltering.
We want change in the care of our infrastucture.
We want to change our unsafe streets into safe streets.
And, I could go on and on.
Naive, perhaps, but "change" has to start at the top.

[random_radar]

If you are not willing to fight a revolution, you are not going to see change in the government. The government has the lawyers, police, military, and money to control your life. You will do what you are told or suffer fines, imprisonment, and the loss of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Government is the organization to maintain the status quo for the wealthy and powerful who own and rule society. Nothing changes for you little people unless you are willing to overthrow the current order of things.

But don''t get your hopes up. Revolutions merely change who rules for their own benefit. The little people will always remain under the heavy boot of establishment control. So go back to your regularly scheduled servitude and be grateful for what little you are given.

But I probably didn''t need to tell your that, you already believed it because the government taught it to you in public school.

[jon2012-2009]

That means uniting a broad coalition and Hillary(your obvious candidate)is incapable of doing that given her polarizing politics.
Posted by realpatriot1 at 09:09 AM : Jan 11, 2008

You make it sound like Hillary''s polarizing persona is all her fault. Was she polarizing before Bill''s first term? Have you considered the possibility that she''s a victim and survivor?

My view is that the Republicans managed to savage her and Bill politically, almost in fact succeeded. So who''s to say that won''t happen with Obama? If other things were equal otherwise, I would have no trouble supporting Obama. Based on my criteria of honesty and competence, I would prefer Edwards if not Hillary. Obama is my man if he wins the nomination only because I would not consider voting for a Republican.

[horse3farm]

from snopes.com. It is factual.
Who is Barack Obama? Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr.,a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel,Kenya and Ann Dunham,a white ATHIEST from Wichita, Kansas.
Obama''''s parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia. When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, ''''He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school.''''
Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama''''s mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta. Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Obama joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background. Keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran. The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!! Would you want this man leading our country?

[observantx]

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

I believe Joe and Mary Public have decided that electing anyone who says they are going to "stay the course" is insane. That''s why Obama has attracted the following he has. That''s also why all the other candidates are parroting his talking points. The squawking of "ME TOO!!" is simultaneously funny and pathetic, especially coming from the Mitt camp. Here''s a guy who wants to permanently install the good old corporate and oil boy oligarchy GeorgeandDick have pandered to for the last two terms.

Yes, change IS what''s driving this race to our Oval Office. The question is: Do we end up with what the Who once sang of: "say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss" or do we end up with a president dedicated to restoring our Constitution and our rights and one who works to "... establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

[mgsorens]

What will we change to? It is deceptive to pretend that everyone wants to change TO the same thing or even in the same direction. Any leader has to define where he will lead to. It is frightening to think that so many people want so much to be led by a charismatic leader that they aren''t inclined to ask "where to?"

[mgsorens]

What will we change to? It is deceptive to pretend that everyone wants to change TO the same thing or even in the same direction. Any leader has to define where he will lead to. It is frightening to think that so many people want so much to be led by a charismatic leader that they aren''t inclined to ask "where to?"

[jack3213]

http://www.youtube.com/user/TMWKK

[realpatriot1]

metroduck,

All the successes of the Clinton Presidency from the balanced budgets to welfare reform to education reform
and reversing the Reagan tax cuts were accomplished by "singing the Kumbaya" of bipartisonship. When the Clintons tried to play the Edwards populist card on healthcare they failed.

You don''t build a governing majority by bringing politicians and special interests together after the election so much as you unite the public and bring a mandate grounded in public support to bear on the politicians.

That means uniting a broad coalition and Hillary(your obvious candidate)is incapable of doing that given her polarizing politics.

The American people want a change from Bush, from insane military incursions which bring us only more hatred, from politics which cater to corporations at the expense of the American worker, from an isolating foreign policy approach which has marginalized America, and from a government approach designed to strip us of our liberties. We are sick of Bush and want a change! That''s the long and short of it and yes, liberals and conservatives are not inclined to compromise on many issues and are polarized.
When somebody yaps about bipartisanship, what they really mean is do it my way. Bush has had his way and America has suffered because of it!!!

[ubrew12]

RowdyTexan2 said: "there are many things that need to be fixed! War, and war mongering, Respect for our Constitution, Close our borders, A National Health Trust, REgulation and taxation of big business, Welfare--quit paying people to stay home and have babies"
RowdyTexan2 for President! (unless, of course, you bear some relation to that OTHER texan...)