"Change" has perhaps become the most influential buzzword of the very young 2008.
Yet though I understand that it is expected for a potential political leader promising "change" to change his own views numerous times, I can't help but question the true meaning of the word - especially since the word is thrown around more aimlessly than a fourth-quarter Eli Manning pass.
Change is inevitable, and it happens each and every day. Over the past year, I've changed my wardrobe from American Eagle to Gap, my preference in music from Bob Marley to Daft Punk, and my magazine subscriptions from Sports Illustrated and Maxim to the Atlantic and GQ.
It's pretty safe to say that I underwent some changes, and the best part is, I didn't even have to make plans or promises of such ground-breaking alterations - they just occurred as time progressed.
So given such an inevitable nature, what kind of change is actually being promised in the political realm? As far as I can tell, that is the real question - not whether it will occur.
After respective second and third place finishes in the Iowa caucuses, it was reported that former Mass. Governor Mitt Romney and Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) were to make some changes before the New Hampshire primaries. Romney wore a new outfit, and Clinton shed a tear while blasting U2. Changes were made, yet I can guarantee that they did not make a damn bit of difference.
The same can be said of the other candidates. It is widely reported that former Senator John Edwards promises to make fundamental changes to our economy, but I wouldn't be surprised if the first time that he promised to eliminate "corporate greed" was mid-$400 haircut. Or maybe he was on his 102-acre estate in North Carolina, staring eye to eye with the residents of the trailer park across the street.
I think what Edwards should change is his outlook. Until then, his talk of change is mere verbiage being spewed from an empty suit - complete with a very nice haircut, of course.
Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex.) is an interesting candidate and has been dubbed by many to be the "dark horse" in '08. His ideas are certainly different; however, much like the other candidates, he is quick to lay blame squarely on the shoulders of the current administration.
He suggests that overseas intervention is a leading culprit of the current administration's malevolence, and that this must be rectified. So how about no more overseas intervention, right? Wrong. In reality, the day that this happens would be one of jubilance in these terrorized areas.
"Change is coming ... real change in Washington." These are a few of the phrases shown on Senator Barack Obama's (D-Ill.) Web site. How pointless can these little tidbits really be? How little can they really say? Change is coming? What a ridiculously laughable headline.
Of course change is coming. I was surprised when I read through Obama's Web site and there wasn't an outline of other similarly obvious truths. Fish can swim. Babies can't run a five-minute mile when they're born. Thanks, Barack. You're so right.
Perhaps I should be the one to change. I should change my analysis and my overall perspective, but I really don't believe that to be the problem. Rather, I find that empty words are problematic, as they are polluting the extremely valuable air-time in both debates and speeches.
The next time that a candidate promises to change Washington, turn it on its head and shake things up, think about what this really means. Each candidate is, seemingly, invested in his or her beliefs, and, like it or not, he or she is guaranteed to change Washington.
Demand to hear the issues, demand to hear clearer responses, and make a candidate earn your vote instead of cheering for an inevitable "sea of change."
Then, change will occur - regardless.
Matt Whitehead is a sophomore majoring in Political Science.
