The Fuddy-duddy effect

I came across a piece last week by syndicated columnist George F. Will that got me a little riled-up.

Here’s a link: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/373230_will03.html

While Will does raise a couple of good points, I think this piece exemplifies why so many older folks are uncomfortable with the idea of electing Barack Obama.

I remember having a discussion with a Hilary Clinton supporter debating the merits of each candidate. And the discussion about Obama kept coming back to one question: “Change, just what does that mean?”

At the time, I couldn’t answer that question to either the Clinton-supporter’s or my satisfaction.

After a bit of reflection I am still trying to come-up with a solid definition, but here’s my working definition.

Change:
- In politics as usual.
- In how America, views/interacts with the rest of the world.
- In what Americans expect from their government.
- Anything but George Bush.

Thank goodness for term limits, the rule hosed us by forcing Clinton from office, but we all win this time around when Bush gets sent packing.

My definition of change seems to really scare older, I mean, more experienced-voters. As evidenced by this snip-it from Will’s column: ”Swift and sweeping changes are almost always calamitous consequences of calamities,”

Change is scary, so I understand the knee-jerk “sky-is-falling” reaction to anything new. But I cannot comprehend how someone as intelligent as Will can insinuate that an Obama presidency will be a “calamitous consequences of calamities” when you look at the last eight years and consider his predecessor.

The sentiment is that with anyone but Obama, you are getting a known quantity, which I am willing to concede. John McCain, once the maverick of the Senate, has now fallen into line with the status-quo republican election machine and now looks to be G.W. 2.0. What’s really scary about this new McCain is that he seems to have a bit of a Napoleon Complex. As in, he needs to prove that he is not just a replacement for G.W., but that he’s even tougher on terrorism. I am absolutely terrified to see what “calamity” will come from that.

America has never had its hands clean when it comes to foreign policy. As I’ve noted before, America has been bully to the world. And regardless of the President, democrat or republican, has steadfastly acted in ways that bettered American interests abroad regardless of consequences.

The time has come for that to change.

This is an example of the change that Obama supporters like me are talking about. Obama is willing to talk with other countries. I am encouraged by that. My foreign policy experience is a bit thin, but last time I checked, it’s hard to negotiate when one party has the barrel of a gun in their mouth.

Who knows what will happen if Obama and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chavez sit-down for brandy and cigars at Camp David. But I am worried where we’ll end-up if they don’t. Just the idea that some of these politically marginalized countries may have a seat at the table will be enough to ease tensions and start a dialogue that will lead away from worrisome rhetoric and possible military action.

Will’s argument seems to be based on the sentiment that the world is too big and one man is too insignificant to make any real change. Perhaps that is experience speaking to my youthful ambition. Or perhaps that is just the cynicism of the elderly looking back on their own wasted life.

Just because you’ve been there and done that, doesn’t mean it’s the only way it can be done. America can elect its oldest President ever and maintain the status quo. Or America can roll the dice on change and elect Obama.

Honestly, I can’t see anyone doing worse than the guy who’d been in office the past eight years. But I’d hate to give McCain a chance to surprise me…