'Change' campaigns: Can they deliver?

The Christian Science Monitor
'Change' campaigns: Can they deliver?
By Alexandra Marks
April 10th, 2008

All the candidates running for the presidential nomination have messages of change. Senator John McCain promises to clean up Washington's "spendthrift ways"; Senator Hillary Clinton wants to change "the failed policies and the wrong-headed priorities of this administration;" and the candidate whose campaign is based on his promise of change, Senator Barack Obama vows to change Washington so that it is more united and open to the voices of the average American. There have been many discussions in the media, both mainstream and alternative, about whether or not any of these candidates are genuine in their promises of change, and there have been many discussions about which candidate wants to bring about the 'right' kind of change, but Alexandra Marks' article offers a totally different frame. Miss Marks analyzes whether the change these candidates offer is actually possible.


Ms. Marks offers the context of past presidents who were able to usher in change, and the environment that allowed them to be successful. There have been relatively few presidents in the past century that have successfully ushered in change Marks states; The Roosevelts, John F. Kennedy and Reagan are the only four who have accomplished change. Not only were all these men great orators, but they also had the political skills to work around a slow and often difficult congress, and they also all had the political climate on their sides: the people of the US wanted change.

Marks cites different polls saying that about 80% of Americans want change; which means the political climate is good for whichever candidate wins the election.

Marks then prefaces the next section of her article with a quote from an expert that warns that it is impossible to know how effective a person will be as president, until they are actually in the Oval office. Marks notes that although both the Democratic candidates have touted themselves as the candidate of change their policies aren't that different from each other. Yet it is Obama who has captured the American people in their belief in his ability to bring about change.

Marks then goes through the different steps a president needs to be successful about bringing about change. First the candidate needs to have the oratory skills to win the hearts and minds of the American people; Obama has the clear advantage. They also need to be able to pass their bills through congress and it is here that Clinton has the advantage.

Miss Marks interviewed a professor from Brown University who says that Hillary doesn't have the grassroots support that is needed to bring about change. She also briefly notes that McCain is actually the candidate perceived as having the 'right experience' to be the new president.

The article ends though with the note that although Obama has the most ingredients to make him the candidate most likely able to bring about change because,

"He has a unique status as an outsider who also has Washington experience and he is someone who can inspire people,"

many people are still skeptical that, even with all those ingredients, he will be able to bring about substantial change.

Overall a very well written article. Often times it is easy to discern what the actual opinion of the journalist is, but I was unable to do so with Ms. Marks. The article didn't quite fall into the framing trap on the characters of the candidates like other newspapers. Most newspapers, I believe, would have focused much more strongly on Obama's message of change, wouldn't have mentioned McCain at all, and wouldn't have mentioned Hillary Clinton's promise of change because that doesn't fit with the frame the media has given her. I appreciate the efforts of this newspaper and author. Out of the three 'experts' cited, all were male.