January 8, 2008 

If you’re paying any attention at all to the presidential candidate nominating contests, you know each candidate represents himself or herself to the voters as the agent of change—nothing all that new for American presidential politics.  Regardless of who becomes the next president, however, there will be as much, if not more, continuity as change.  And when it comes to change, what change do the majority of Americans really want and how much of it are we likely to get?

On Barack Obama’s website and in his stump speeches he says “I’m asking you to believe not just in my ability to bring change in Washington, I’m asking you to believe in yours.”  Hillary Clinton says, “I am an agent of change.”  Mike Huckabee says he’s, “out to change the Republican Party.”  John McCain says, “Change is coming.”  Mitt Romney says, “ Washington needs fundamental top to bottom change.”  You get the idea.

Every presidential election is about changing the person who sits in the Oval Office.  That’s a given.  But every candidate wants to you to believe that they will, and can, change not only the policy direction of the country but the way Washington works. 

Indeed American presidents have made great changes in both.  Abraham Lincoln not only abolished slavery, he changed what Washington, DC, meant to Americans and how it interacted with the states.  Before the civil war Americans said “the United States are.”  After the civil war they said “the United States is.”  Franklin D. Roosevelt, with the introduction of Social Security and other grand social policies, changed the social fabric of the nation.  Ronald Reagan’s foreign and defense policy brought about the end of the Cold War and changed the balance of power in the entire world.

George W. Bush has brought about change.  After 9/11 he began treating terrorists as enemy combatants rather than criminals, and he exercised executive power in the war on terrorism in a manner that most Democrats and some Republicans believe violates American’s rights.

Despite what presidents do, however, Washington, DC, is resistant to change.  It is an ever-expanding bureaucracy with large departments of government, each with its own constituency.  The political appointees who head and staff these agencies come and go with each administration.  They quickly discover that these institutions remain remarkably consistent from administration to administration, and the new policies of one administration aren’t easily changed by the next.

Then there’s the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court.  Try and change the way Washington, DC, functions too much, by introducing the line item veto for example, and the court intervenes and says you can’t do that.

Vastly different policy positions exist among the candidates.  During the primary season Democrats run to the left, Republicans run to the right.  During the general election, however, they run toward the middle.  So as we listen to the candidates throughout the coming year, what kind of changes do we really want and how likely are they to occur?

On the domestic agenda three big issues are immigration reform, health care, and Social Security reform. 

Illegal immigration as an issue has been boiling for years.  Last year it boiled over.  Congress introduced a bi-partisan immigration reform bill, but it ran head long into voter opposition.  Protecting our borders from terrorists and dealing with the 12 million or so illegal immigrants already in the country are important issues.  So is changing the balance of the electorate.  America is trending conservative.  Give the illegal immigrants already in the country a path to citizenship, and most of them who become voters will vote Democratic.  Immigration policy is likely to see some progress in the next administration.  Washington can only achieve “comprehensive reform” if both parties come together, which, at this point, remains unlikely.

The overwhelming majority of American voters want expanded if not universal health care coverage.  They only disagree on whether that should be achieved by private health insurance or by the government and at what cost.  Even if a Democrat wins the White House, unless he or she has an overwhelming majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate, profound changes in the way Americans get health care aren’t likely to happen.

Every voter knows that the American demographics are changing.  If we don’t reform the Social Security system it will go broke.  Americans will either have to pay higher taxes or accept reduced benefits.  Washington politicians know they have to deal with the problem, but they’d like to avoid it if they could.  Based on recent experience during the past two eight-year administrations, Social Security reform seems unlikely until crisis is unavoidable eight to ten years from now.

On the international agenda three big issues are the War in Iraq , the approach the United States will take toward combating terrorists, and global warming. 

Will the next president quickly pull out of Iraq and go back to treating terrorists as criminals?  All the leading democratic candidates are running on a platform of ending the war in Iraq and bringing the troops home.  They all want to close Guantanamo, abandon interrogation techniques they consider torture, and use the American courts to prosecute terrorists.  Even Republican candidates who support the surge are likely to move away from Bush's policies on Guantanamo and how we deal with captured terrorists.  But as long as we’re winning in Iraq, not even a Democrat is likely to pull out of Iraq completely, and we may be surprised what Bush policies the next president retains.  Overall, there will be more continuity than change.

And as for global warming, the current debate will continue.  Regardless who occupies the White House, there is only so much the president and congress can do without having a profound impact on the American economy.  Until the evidence for future disaster is overwhelming, which some believe it already is, don’t expect all that much change.

Finally, history tells us that each new president confronts a new and unexpected crisis.  Whoever is elected president will have many challenges.  Some of them, like 9/11, may be a catalyst for change.  Change is inevitable.  But change is usually more evolutionary than revolutionary.  As we listen to the candidates promises for change, a healthy skepticism is in order.