Change for change’s sake isn’t a theme cackling Kamala Harris, Tampon Tim Walz and Democrats can ride to victory in two months. But that won’t stop them from making a go of it.
You’ve got to admit, it was odd when Kamala Harris adopted a “change” theme for her makeshift, quickly thrown together campaign this year. It was curious because when she
wakes up each day and goes into work, she’s positioned next to someone who can make “change” just by snapping his fingers.
Senile Joe Biden himself has been successful at one thing – changing things. Within the span of one presidential term, he’s obliterated the legitimacy of many/most of the institutions that once made this country… “great”. Nothing has kept him from his self-appointed mission. From law enforcement to the military to culture to education, Biden has realized his transformative goals.
In his reelection bid, senile Joe said he wanted to “finish the job”. One takes him at his word. His failing brain got in the way.
To understand why Harris opted for change to serve as the foundation for her campaign now, you must first understand that liberals – or communists or socialists or progressives or whatever they’re labeling themselves on any given day – are never satisfied, even when they’re in power. Bill Clinton ran in 1992, for example, as the first of the current line of “new” Democrats who took what used to be considered the party’s good ol’ fashioned big government advocacy as a pretense for taking over the entirety of the American government and repackaging it in newer, more electorally palatable form.
Naturally, none of it made sense. “We’ll sell ‘change’ to the voters even when there’s nothing to change”, was the thinking. When the economy was still booming off the policies of the Reagan years, we (Democrats) told ‘em things actually stunk and more taxes were needed. After that, if deficits were high, we’d spend more. If unemployment was low, we’d encourage more government hiring. If the military was strong, we’d cut the defense budget. If Illegal immigration was out-of-control, we’d pretend as though we needed more. Healthcare was in crisis and screamed out for a takeover.
Change, change, change!
In the early 1990’s, Democrats were losing ground in the American political race. They’d just lost three consecutive presidential elections to a septuagenarian former actor from Hollywood and then the man’s Republican establishment vice president, a politician known as a nice guy, but wasn’t considered to harbor a wealth of personal issue positions.
So what’s the solution? Change!
Ronald Reagan was an idea man. Bush was a keeper of the old guard. Therefore, to run on a platform of “change” came naturally to this newer vintage Democrat. Michael Dukakis couldn’t have come across as a reasonable change from the Jimmy Carter/Walter Mondale tenure that had been discredited by eight years of freedom and liberty advanced by Reagan.
It’s been said that Reagan made politics “fun” again. Whereas Carter made Americans question themselves, Reagan made them believe. There was a new American ascendance. The United States was back, and Democrats hated it.
Bill Clinton was different. He was the “change” Democrats had been waiting for. The lip-biting, skirt chasing serial liar spoke like a centrist and governed like a liberal, the perfect political combination to seize control of an electoral coalition that could win.
Barack Obama was gifted with being the right politician at the perfect time in history to assert that “change” was on the way if he managed to win the White House. Helping him make his case, the Republican establishment nominated two Vietnam era big government wishy-washy “moderates” in their own right to oppose him.
“Change was cool.” Democrats had always been personality driven in their quest to attain power, but Republicans had become tone deaf to the realities of winning elections. Barack Obama didn’t have to be for anything, he just had to be his leftist radical self and implement an agenda. He could say things to Joe the Plumber and regular people about “spreading the wealth around” and “If you want to stay with your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”
Change – and being for change – was the only thing that mattered.
So is it any wonder that Kamala Harris is trying to be the “change” candidate this year, even though she’s effectively been in power for three-plus years, and that any “change” that represents going in a new direction would effectively be away from her?
What gives? In an article titled “Harris positions herself as change candidate but embraces unpopular ‘Bidenomics’”, Jeff Mordock wrote at The Washington Times the other day:
“Voters have given Mr. Biden poor marks for handling the economy during most of his presidency. His economic approval ratings languished in the low 30% range since 2021 as inflation soared and voters soured on rising prices for groceries and other household goods.
“Ms. Harris’ dual message of taking credit for some of Mr. Biden’s economic policies while distancing herself from others is reflected in polls. An ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll released last month revealed that more voters trust former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, to handle the economy than Ms. Harris. The poll also found that the public overwhelmingly thinks Ms. Harris had limited influence on Mr. Biden’s economic policies, 64% to 33%...
“Ms. Harris’ economic vision calls for preserving Mr. Biden’s policies and for the federal government to play a more aggressive role. She has called for the government to provide $25,000 in aid to first-time homebuyers to control the cost of housing, a $6,000 benefit for newborns and price controls on groceries. Her plan will appeal to liberal voters.”
The last fact being the key one. As everyone realizes, liberals love to spend other people’s money. Take regulations, for example. Business people hate ‘em. Regulations themselves don’t do anything, don’t create products or wealth and serve as drags on productivity. Yet Democrats can’t get enough of them because they make everything more expensive and increase the government’s power to foster the kind of “change” they’re looking for without even being elected.
This is how Democrats can get away with claiming that more “change” is needed. Kamala said it herself: “There’s more to do.” Democrats attempt to sidestep their glaringly contradictory campaign themes by insisting that Republicans – and specifically, Donald Trump – have prevented them from realizing all the wonderful benefits that their policies would have rained down on people if Americans had just been wise enough to vote more of them into power.
Despite a mountain of evidence that they’re wrong, Democrats’ answer to economic blips is merely to double-down on what they’re already doing. If COVID was eradicated (which it wasn’t) by one government program, two would’ve been better! Think about the billions that was spend by school districts and businesses purchasing plexiglass barriers to protect the citizenry from the Chinese virus – and themselves.
Where’s the plexiglass now, Kamala? Where did all the school store their barriers that were scuttled once some semblance of sanity returned to the land? Or how about masks? Remember how you had to stock up on face coverings before venturing outside your house? Landfills are now filled to capacity containing all the spent masks.
If it could be said that Donald Trump considers all publicity beneficial, Democrats think all forms of “change” are good for the country, particularly those that undermine traditional notions of market economics and individual choice. Democrats think their big boondoggle programs aid the economy even if they increase the debt or anchor down businesses or increase bureaucracy. That’s “change”, isn’t it?
At the same time, such intellectual duplicity allows them to make the argument that Biden’s economic policies have advanced people, but that “change” is still needed.
Housing prices are too high? It’s not because of Democrat economic policies that fanned inflation and interest rates. To them, it’s a call for price controls and government checks. Next thing you’ll see Democrats pushing for federally insured loans. Oh wait, they already do that! And then propose that tax credits per child are necessary to ease the pressures on take home pay.
Education is yet another area where Democrats long for “change” but not in the ways that most average Americans would like it. Americans are becoming increasingly frustrated with the ineptitude of the country’s public schools and would welcome charter schools or school choice.
But Democrats don’t welcome the change that takes control out of their hands.
This isn’t to say that change is bad in all cases. Political parties wouldn’t have much of an argument for getting elected if they ran on an agenda promoting perpetuating the status quo. Even Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign improved on his “Make America Great Again” slogan – it became “Keep America Great.”
The difference being Trump seeks to reduce the government’s role in Americans’ lives rather than Harris and Walz taking the decision-making power out of their hands. Cultural changes this century have transformed “change” into a new kind of reality. It’s not just arguments over tax rates, the size of government and illegal immigration any longer.
The Democrats’ economic proposals seek to transform the economy and place the power in the hands of a bureaucracy guided by unelected decision-makers who set the rules and the conditions for playing the game. There’s simply no place for anyone who objects to the new way of doing things.
If Kamala Harris gets ahold of the White House next year, her brand of “change” will make Joe Biden’s look cautious.
Given all this, no one should be surprised that Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are running to both preserve what Joe Biden started in his administration and change course at the same time. Democrats instinctively understand that their best argument in any election is to sell “change”, even when they’re in power. Democrats will say anything to be elected. What they’ll do after that is anybody’s guess. It won’t be helpful for the good side.
Joe Biden economy
inflation
Biden cognitive decline
gas prices,
Nancy Pelosi
Biden senile
Kamala Harris candidacy
Donald Trump campaign
Harris Trump debates
J.D. Vance
Kamala vice president
Speaker Mike Johnson
Donald Trump assassination
2022 elections
Donald Trump
2024 presidential election
Tim Walz
Comments