Change – Or ‘Same Old Same Old’?
The candidates have promised change in this election, but have they delivered? McCain called for a move toward the center, away from the divisive policies of George Bush. Obama called for an end to the old ways of campaigning and governing. Both promised to run clean campaigns, based on the issues, and both promised to adhere to public campaign financing. Both candidates have failed to live up to the expectations they raised for themselves early in the campaign. This should be no surprise – we are dealing with politicians, after all, who tend to be rather cynical about saying what they think the voters want to hear, rather than what they will need to do if elected.
McCain has promised to reduce the deficit by adjusting the tax cuts created by previous administrations. Possibly this might have worked if the world economy were running smoothly, but it seems a dubious proposition at the present. However, it is the message the Republican party base wants to hear. Obama, having muted his criticism of the Iraqi war briefly, is once again talking up getting out of Iraq quickly, a message that suits the Democratic party base. Such a move may or may not help stabilize the situation in Iraq, but that is the least of Obama’s interests at the moment – despite his claims to have more foreign policy experience than Governor Palin, Obama wants to appeal to his base to close the campaign.
Then there is campaign finance reform. McCain has lived up to his long standing belief that money is corrupting the national political system, and has worked to keep his campaign in the bounds of the campaign finance law bearing his name, and to accept public funding. This choice severely limits the McCain campaign by limiting the amount of advertising it can purchase. A principled decision, but perhaps politically unwise. Senator Obama’s initial decision was to accept the spending limits imposed by taking federal funding. This would have given the public an opportunity to test the validity of public campaign financing, as both major candidates would have been similarly restricted. The Obama campaign recognized the error of their ways, when it became clear that this year, the Democrats might be able to raise more money than the Republicans. So, despite promising to change the way politics was done, the Obama campaign returned to the old method of campaigning by fund raising.
This should surprise no one. Both parties are telling the voters that they each represent true change, but neither is changing anything substantive in the way they campaign. Promise the base what it wants to hear, offer hope of change to the undecided voters, and spend, spend, spend on advertising. Ironically, the Republicans have shown themselves to be slightly more willing to risk real change than the Democrats, by accepting public financing. If McCain wins, the practice may get more attention. If Obama wins, public campaign financing is probably going to be quietly dropped from the discussion of either party, and go the way of the Edsel, one of those designs that failed to win public approval.
So here we are – another year of promised change by the political parties proves to be undermined by both parties and the media. The media? Yes, the media. Who profits most from limitless campaign advertising? The media. Don’t look for any real change soon. Both parties like the results they get with big spending, and the media moguls like the profits they get from the advertising buys. Change? No, this year’s promised change looks like the same old same old.
Follow Us!
Keep up with all of our articles by subscribing to our RSS feed. Also be sure to follow us on Twitter and become a fan on Facebook.
-->4 Responses to “Change – Or ‘Same Old Same Old’?”
Pingback from PoliGazette » Same Old Indeed
Time October 28, 2008 at 9:00 pm PDT
[...] Michael van der Galien: I agree completely with your cynical assessment of the ‘change’ canard Orson…. [...]
Comment from Michael Merritt
Time October 29, 2008 at 3:34 am PDT
Trashing both parties? I think we’re going to get along pretty well.
Welcome!
Comment from Orson Buggeigh
Time October 30, 2008 at 3:37 pm PDT
Thanks, Michael. I tend to see each party having some areas of strength where it performs well, and some areas of weakness, where it performs poorly. So sometimes I’ll probably be picking on one party, some days another, and sometimes, on both at once.
Again, thanks for the welcome.
Comment from Michael van der Galien
Time October 28, 2008 at 3:50 pm PDT
I agree completely with your cynical assessment of the ‘change’ canard Orson.
Media: if they were paying me thousands, or tens of thousands, to run their advertisements, I would probably not have a big problem with 4 years of campaigning for one election either.