It will make for a very exciting presidential campaign down south.
Democrat delegate Michael Wagner at the Convention:
“The one thing that I see as a difference,” he said, “and God bless the Obama supporters – but none of them seem to have any reason to be supporting him except for ethereal thoughts like, ‘He stands for change,’ or, ‘He makes me feel good.’
“Well, you could say the same thing about drugs.”
From the National Post
It’s always about change. We moved to Harper cuz we were tired of Creton and Martin. We flipped over to Joe Who and whatshername for the same reason. Change. Newness. Now we have another bloody election. hopefully this one will give the Conservatives a go at a majority and we can finally see what they’re made of. And when they get it, and a few years have passed, we’ll want to see what the Liberals can do with a minority government. And so it goes. Might even be a good time for Harper to get a hair style.
Let’s also not forget that W won with the same resounding theme.
Jeff, “if it’s always about change” wouldn’t that support the argument that “Change” is a pretty lame campaign platform? It offers no differentiation, and certainly no meaningful insight into what Obama brings to the table.
I think it does.
Isn’t it a Progressive Conservative axiom that “bland works” (Bill Davis)? Also, didn’t George Plimpton write that the basis of conservatism is to resist change (or more gently: combat the desire to go off willy nilly on what he considered fool’s errands)?
Ergo, if conservative = status quo, then doesn’t unconservative = new/change?
It would hardly make for an inspiring campaign if the conservative platform was “more of the same… but with patriotic flags for everyone!”
On the policy front: the focus should be on progress, however you pronounce it (pro-gres v. praw-gres). Would that be more palatable to the word ‘change’?
But in a larger context: does “more of the same” cut it in this brave new world? Can conservative thinking slow down the world enough to maintain a status quo?
@Jeff: don’t forget the extra large pile of fear W used in the last election. Wedge politics at it’s finest.
Rob, don’t get me started on the use of the word “progressive”, that word has been hi-jacked by the left, since the term “socialist” has lost it’s appeal.
My point about Obama’s “Change” campaign is not that I oppose change, rather that saying you will change things does me no good until I understand the precise nature of that change. Change what, and how?
And the “Conservative Party” is not running on a platform of “Conservative”. Just as the Liberal Party is certainly not running on a platform of “Liberal”. In the case of the Liberals it really is quite the contrary. They would like to bring less freedom of choice for Canadians, not more.
So, to re-cap, no one here is suggesting that “more of the same” will cut it.
In terms of the words, hi-jacked or not, I was just working from definitions and history. Politics of any persuasion co-opting language… I’m shocked (shocked!)
And speaking of hi-jacking words: wasn’t it the right that equated ’socialism’ with eeeevviilll ‘communism’?
If the Conservative Party isn’t running on a conservative platform, haven’t they lost their connection to their roots? Or is the Conservative Party’s ideology as malleable as any other political party?
[I'm just ribbing you on all these issues. I get to watch the political chicanery first hand here in the Second City. Canadian politics are civil in comparison. I'll send you an Obama t-shirt if you want.]
So I suppose your point is “what’s in a name?” and on that point we would find some common ground. Let’s also not forget that today’s “Conservative Party” was yesterday’s “Reform Party” to a very large degree. How wacky is that?
I put a lot more stock in what the parties actually stand for and what policies they put forward – and that is where the campaign slogans can play a role, far more so than the party’s name.