Change – the Latest Dirty Word?

Change – the Latest Dirty Word?

The recent and ongoing events of the US elections and Presidential succession have brought into focus the question of CHANGE.

In 2008, Barack Obama was elected US President. He was labeled as the candidate of CHANGE.

In fact, he claimed that he was going to CHANGE Washington and his election as that country’s first Black President was hailed as a huge CHANGE all over the world.

Black people all over the world felt a sense of elation at his rise to the highest office in the “most powerful country on earth”.

In 2016, Donald Trump replaced Obama as President. Trump, too, was labeled as the candidate of CHANGE.

He also claimed he was going to CHANGE Washington and “drain the swamp”, putting “America First” and “Making America Great Again”. He even describes himself as the champion of the workers of America, vowing to bring factories and jobs “back home”.

So, what really is CHANGE? Who represents CHANGE? What are we to make of CHANGE?

The occupant of the White House has moved from a Republican white guy to a Democrat Black guy then to a Republican white guy.

So, is the CHANGE from Republican to Democrat CHANGE?

Or, is the CHANGE from white guy to black back to white CHANGE?

Absolutely nothing has changed about the role of the Office of the President of the US, despite the changes in the person occupying that office.

Well, one might argue, Obama succeeded in Obama care where countless others failed.

Has that meant that all Americans now have universal access to healthcare which the world declared in the 1980’s to be a Human Right?

A few million more US citizens got access to health insurance costing them up to $2,000 per month and the cost of health insurance premiums continues to rise.

Ok. Let’s say that was CHANGE.

Along comes Trump and his first action as President and of the Republicans in the Congress is to repeal Obamacare without any replacement (although in effect it remains in place for another year).

So, was Obamacare CHANGE? Or, is repealing it CHANGE?

What is all this noise about CHANGE?

CHANGE is anything that is different, or that we are told is different? That’s it?

Replacing the holders of offices of power routinely by substituting the candidate or candidates of one party by those of the other – is that CHANGE?

It is now widely accepted that “CHANGE is the ONLY constant”. It is also accepted as part of our everyday language that CHANGE can be for “the Better” or for “the Worse”.

CHANGE is not NEUTRAL, not meaningless. CHANGE can be positive or negative. It can result in Advance or Retrogression.

In Trinidad and Tobago, we, too, have changed the Party-in-Power routinely for about 3 decades now. Each time the new occupants of the positions-of-power have also claimed to be about CHANGE. NAR was CHANGE, PNM was CHANGE, UNC was CHANGE, PP was CHANGE and PNM again is CHANGE.

We have even had CHANGE in the PM’s Office from African man to Indian Man to African man to Indian woman back to African man. The PM has been Trinidadian at one time and Tobagonian at another and again now.

What we must ask ourselves is: Has all this CHANGE in the holders of positions-of-power in our country really CHANGed anything when it comes to the nature of our system of governance or the general quality of our lives or the development in human terms of our society?

Did the CHANGE from Republican to Democrat, from white man to black and back in the ‘most powerful’ office in the world really CHANGE anything when it comes to the role of the US in world affairs, the amount of wars and killing the US has been doing for decades on end or has anything really fundamental changed for the lives of US citizens or the nature of their systems of governance?

Well, one may argue that we have had more buildings, more corruption, more this or that.

But, what have we had that is REALLY NEW?

How is it possible to have all this CHANGE, yet the result is NOTHING REALLY NEW?

Obama said he was going to end war. Well, he reduced the number of Americans killed but the same wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continued and Syria is added and the overthrow of regimes in Libya etc., continue. The only CHANGE in that respect was that he added to the power of the Presidency, the power to decide who to assassinate by drone strike regardless of ‘collateral damage’.

So, in the end What was the CHANGE that Obama, the candidate of CHANGE, brought?

And, if there was CHANGE, What CHANGE will Trump, the next candidate of CHANGE who declared himself against all that Obama did, bring?

So is CHANGE for the sake of CHANGE really CHANGE at all! Or, is that what we now popularly describe our own changes of holders of positions-of-power as EX-CHANGE?

CHANGE cannot mean going in 2 opposite directions at the same time or even in 1 direction today and in the opposite tomorrow.

That would be Marking Time; Running on 1 spot or on a treadmill…. expending a lot of energy, appearing to moving, but, in reality, going Nowhere.

What we have been told in this business of elections is that CHANGE really means NOTHING.

If every holder of positions-of-power we are told represents CHANGE, but our experience, the reality of the outcome of these elections exercises, shows us that apart from a matter of degree here or there, the holders of positions-of-power in our society DO NOT CHANGE ANYTHING FUNDAMENTAL and DO NOT REPRESENT REAL CHANGE – CHANGE THAT THE PEOPLE NEED AND WANT.

With all the CHANGE, here we have had No CHANGE to our Constitutional arrangements despite every new round of CHANGE candidates promising to do that.

It is the same in the US.

The propaganda about these supposed representatives of CHANGE has turned CHANGE into an empty slogan devoid of Real Meaning for the advance of society, for even the limited advance in our systems of Governance.

CHANGE has become the latest buzz word – devoid of Content – the latest bad word.