Choosing a president--the race begins

After Thursday’s Iowa caucuses, Democrat party participants were asked what the biggest contributing factor was in their choice for president. Over 50% indicated that they wanted “change.” Since Barack Obama was first with 37%, John Edwards second with 30%, and Hillary Clinton third with 29%, it seems as though the former first lady is perceived to be part of the status quo that needs to be “changed.” Now that the pulse of the electorate has been taken, it is almost comical to watch the candidates assert themselves as the best potential agent of “change.” It does seem that Democrats are not simply going to let Hillary coast to their party’s nomination after all. Unfortunately for Michigan Democrats, if you are a supporter of Barack Obama, you will not find his name on the primary ballot on January 15. If you don’t want Hillary to win, you have to cast your vote for “uncommitted.”

The past few weeks have been interesting on the Republican side as well. One has been the surprisingly large margin of victory by Mike Huckabee in the Iowa caucuses. Most media observers still doubt that he can win the nomination, however, because they think that he has limited appeal outside of “kooky born-again Christians who think God talks to them and want to impose a theocracy on America.” OK, so that’s not a direct quote, but it’s a good summary of how non-Christians view believers. There definitely is a bias against evangelical Christians, and, truth be told, it doesn’t originate exclusively from Democrats and liberals.

The other surprise has been the resurgence of the candidacy of Sen. John McCain. His campaign had been largely written off by last summer. Perceived by many to be an irascible 72-year old who has angered too many conservatives to be nominated, McCain has benefited from two related world events. First of all, as long as a year before the so-called “surge” was implemented by President Bush, Sen. McCain was calling for the firing of then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and an increase of troops to Iraq. Now that the surge is undeniably effective and is creating true optimism that the war is being won, McCain is the beneficiary of being the sole advocate of the plan, unlike the previous Bush strategy of “let’s be patient” or the Democrat strategy of “let’s get the heck out of Iraq as soon as possible.” It makes McCain appear to be the experienced leader our country needs. The other event was the untimely and unfortunate assassination of former Pakistani president Benazir Bhutto, which highlighted the fact that simply wishing the war against Muslim jihadists would go away isn’t going to make it so. The more Americans realize that there is a dangerous world out there, the more that they seem likely to move national security and terrorism to the chief issues to consider when choosing a leader. Thus McCain’s increase in support—and it appears as though he is poised to win the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, January 8. Getting the endorsement of Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut helps, too, because it appeals to independent voters to consider someone who is able to work with those of the opposition party.

The thing that interests me is the whole concept of “change.” Of course whoever wins the election will be a change from President Bush. But is it enough to want “change” for change’s sake? And instead of speaking vacuously and abstractly about “change,” just what about America or our government needs changing?