We are hearing the word “change” about fifty times a day during this election year. Obama has used the word as a slogan, along with “hope” for his campaign. McCain says he’s for change as well. Change, for me, is what’s in my pants pocket and there isn’t much of it. Political pundits as well as operatives for both candidates reassure us that the “American people” are demanding change. None of them are actually defining precisely what they mean by change. I’m not sure that I’m going to like this change they are promising, at least until it’s better defined. 

Early in the campaign, Obama openly bragged that he intended to raise everyone’s taxes as well as corporate taxes and might double the capital gains tax. This resulted in widespread glee from his main supporters, the fifty percent of the population that pay no income taxes, but it didn’t go over well with the middle class who would actually have to pay these promised hikes. That was perhaps more change than they wanted. Seeing his mistake, he came up with more change. He promised that 95% of the people would get a tax cut. Given that half the people pay no income tax then it is clearly impossible for 95% of Americans to get a tax cut.  

I really don’t know what McCain calls change. He wants to distance himself from President Bush, although he has opposed the president more often than not over the past eight years. He speaks of creating jobs and the usual political boilerplate. Both he and Obama are promising all sorts of things in the name of change.

But As novelist Ellen Glasgow said: "All change is not growth; as all movement is not forward." What matters is innovation. And innovation is an entirely different matter.

What's the difference? "Change" is getting on a different horse. ‘Innovation’ is riding a different race.” 

Krisztina Holly, writing in Business Week back in February said, “When it comes to political issues, I think of change as meaning we swap back and forth between two established and, at times, extreme positions. No new taxes vs. tax hikes. Deporting illegal immigrants vs. immigration amnesty. Mandatory minimum prison sentences vs. judicial discretion. If we just vote for change, we merely set ourselves up for another four years of teeth-gnashing and cross-aisle bickering. 

Innovation, on the other hand, recognizes that these issues aren't red vs. blue propositions. And that often the solutions are something entirely different.” 

I remember when Jimmy Carter was running for president. He promised leadership and a change in the way Washington was run. What we got was double digit interest rates, inflation and a foreign policy that resulted in abandoning our ally, the Shah of Iran. Carter didn’t like his human rights record. In exchange for the Shah we got the Ayatollah Khomeini and our Embassy in Tehran overrun by “students” who held our people hostage for over 400 days. We would have been better off if Gerald Ford had been re-elected. Carter also gave away the Panama Canal. That was change alright and nobody can say he didn’t keep his promise. But he probably didn’t know he was so inept when he was elected and neither did the electorate.

Change for the sake of change isn’t necessarily good. It’s always a good idea to keep an eye on someone who promises change without telling you exactly what he means.