Thread: "Change We Can Believe In" Is Gibberish

Everyone's got to have a campaign theme and catch phrase. I don't think Obama's is really any more or less vapid than any of the others that have been around, not that I can remember any of them.

-dale

Bill Clinton ran on the "change" platform in 1992.

Every presidential candidate that is not an incumbent runs on change or a varation of it. Otherwise voters will just go with the staus quo.

Originally Posted by reasonmclucus

I am also suspicious of politicians who use vague code words.

Are you therefore also suspicious of McCain's touting of "reform"?

Originally Posted by reasonmclucus

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign slogan "Change We Can Believe In" is a nonsense phrase. It has no real meaning.

Am I the only one who thinks that it doesn't make any sense to believe in "change"? I can see believing in religion or love or maybe even music, but believing in "change" makes no sense. It might make sense to believe in Sen. John McCain's ability to handle the presidency, but believing in some vaguely defined change is ridiculous.

Bill Clinton suggested "It's time to change America" when he ran in 1992. I don't recall him changing much of anything, although two years later voters changed Congress by replacing many Democrats with Republicans.

The slogan "Change We Can Believe In" sounds like something a child might consider impressive, but it has no real meaing. Not surprisingly, Obama has more appeal to inexperienced young voters than to wiser older voters who have seen a lot of fast talking phony politicians.

Obama a few months ago commented about the psychological state of small town people who believed in religion, etc. What is the psychological state of people who believe in some vaguely defined "change"?

Obama's supporters must have very empty lives to believe that some vague "change" is going to make their lives better. Do they expect the president to provide them some type of psychological satisfaction?

The term sounds like it might be some type of code word that Obama and his supporters understand, but whose meaning is supposed to be unknown to others.

As an historian I am inherently suspicious of politicians who rely on oratorical ability to reach people on an emotional level. Southern populists like Huey Long and George Wallace used such emotional oratory to succeed. Adolph Hitler was a master of the technique.

I am also suspicious of politicians who use vague code words. Politicians sometimes use code words and phrases to cover up what they are doing. For example, white southern politicians used the phrase "states' rights" to convince people outside the south that southern whites should be allowed to mistreat black American citizens. Southerns whites argued they were attempting to "preserve their way of life" without mentioning that their way of life involved rape and murder of black residents.

How can we be sure the that Barack Obama is not talking about a "change" designed to reduce the level of democracy in the United States? What guarantee do his supporters have that "change" is just a con to get them to vote for a candidates who doesn't have the necessary management experience to run one of Donald Trump's small companies?

It depresses me to think that someone bright enough to obtain a Masters in History would think that this was worth writing, let alone posting. It might just be excusable as an off the cuff reply (you know, the 'streaker's defence & all that), but as a thread starter it is appalling. Gives the whole profession a bad name.

Even by the lower-than-a-snakes-belly-in-death-valley standard of most anti-Obama hit jobs this is particularly sad. So his campaign theme is empty rhetoric - welcome to the 19th century. This could have been used to open up a broader discussion of political rhetoric, the impact of hollow words or empty promises on the body politic. That, however, would have involved an admission that Obama is just doing what everyone else does, but slightly better than his opponent.

Then there are the points of comparison. How about junior Bush's 'compassionate conservatism' or Reagan's 'morning in America'? What about the soaring rhetoric of a Bryant, Kennedy or King? Nah, from two centuries plus of democracy we get Wallace, Long & Hitler. You manage to win the 'Godwin's Law' race in the thread starter. 'Tis a proud proud day.

Why not talk about McCain's 'reform, peace, prosperity'? Apart from being a grab bag of empty slogans (3 for the price of 1), it is suspiciously like Lenin's famous declaration at the Finland Station 'peace, land, bread'. Why not compare McCain to Lenin? It is just as appropriate as the comparisons that were made.

If you want to know how absurd this piece was, even Dale dismissed it, and he rarely misses a chance to take a swing at Obama. Even Rev. Wright knows how to preach to the choir, and he's barking mad.

Originally Posted by Bigfella

What about the soaring rhetoric of a Bryant, Kennedy or King?

Hey now, get my man WJB's name right. It's Bryan.

The point is being sorely missed here. Sure many politicians have run on the change platform, however, following through on their promises while having been in office, tells the tale.

There is one thing different about Obama's "change" platform. It is "change we can believe in." I take that to mean, his rhetoric isn't empty promises, and that he isn't going to be your "typical" politician.

However, he has no record to trust him on his promises, and as time goes by, he is proving himself to be the "typical" politician, meaning, saying one thing, but doing another.

Therefore, Obama may be entering into the territory of "buyers' remorse" between now and November.

FWIW, I ignore most of what politicians say during a campaign.

With Mccain, all one has to do is look at his record. Lot of good, some bad. With Obama, its more difficult since he doesn't have much of a record to judge. Some votes in the Illinois legislature and a couple of years in the Senate. Nothing really stands out.

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

Hey now, get my man WJB's name right. It's Bryan.

Sorry AG, I wasn't sure which it was & didn't have time to google it. Took a stab. Oh well.

Originally Posted by Bigfella

If you want to know how absurd this piece was, even Dale dismissed it, and he rarely misses a chance to take a swing at Obama.

I'd rather discuss items that are real - policies, votes, backgrounds, etc.

Also, it's my opinion that focusing overmuch on, oh, call it an Immediate Rhetoric Moment, really leads to either a) dumbed-down speech, or b) effusively flowery and empty speech. Or a combo. People afraid to say anything or afraid to not say everything.

We all know what Churchill was doing with his "blood, sweat, and tears" and "finest hour" speeches, for instance. Parsing the rhetoric is silly.

Heck, I bet you could parse a fiery, explosive Hitler speech into something that makes him sound like he was advocating daisies and fairy dust.

-dale

There ya go.... I was wondering how long it would take him.

Originally Posted by Julie

There ya go.... I was wondering how long it would take him.

Me? What'd I do?

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

Me? What'd I do?

-dale

Just being your quite unique journalistic self ... with fairy dust on top ! Just kidding Dale, I have always really enjoyed reading your posts.

Originally Posted by dalem

I'd rather discuss items that are real - policies, votes, backgrounds, etc.

Also, it's my opinion that focusing overmuch on, oh, call it an Immediate Rhetoric Moment, really leads to either a) dumbed-down speech, or b) effusively flowery and empty speech. Or a combo. People afraid to say anything or afraid to not say everything.

We all know what Churchill was doing with his "blood, sweat, and tears" and "finest hour" speeches, for instance. Parsing the rhetoric is silly.

Heck, I bet you could parse a fiery, explosive Hitler speech into something that makes him sound like he was advocating daisies and fairy dust.

-dale

"I promise you Freedom and Lollipops!"

"Germany has awoken to a new age of rainbows!"