‘Change envy’ and the Democrats

Democratic presidential aspirants suffer from change envy — each wants us to believe they can produce the bigger transformation in American politics. But while “change” is valuable coinage in the electoral marketplace, it’s also a currency of contempt with voters, contributing to the growing portfolio of cynicism about Washington we see throughout the country. Despite all their rhetoric and lofty promises, the kind of movement to which these agents of difference aspire will not happen unless they alter tactics or achieve a massive political realignment — two outcomes that seem highly unrealistic in the current environment.

Our government institutions are designed to produce movement through accommodation and compromise — words all smart operatives know are verboten during the primary season. Yet if someone did tell the truth about how Washington really works, that might be the biggest “change” we see in the 2008 cycle. But I’m not holding my breath.

All the Democratic presidential candidates fluently speak a language that promises something new. Sen. Hillary Clinton often repeats the slogan, “Ready for change, ready to lead.” Sen. Barack Obama’s favorite metaphor is that we need to “turn the page.”

Last week, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards ratcheted up his stump speech, attacking Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, charging they were part of a corrupt Washington establishment. “Real change starts with being honest, and I want to say something again: The system in Washington is rigged, and I’ll say it again, it’s rigged and it’s rigged by greedy powers,” Mr. Edwards said, according to press reports. “Going back doesn’t move us forward,” he told reporters beside his campaign bus last week, according to one press report.

A statement like that would surely make my politically astute Cocker, Libby, tilt her head and stare at me with one of those “Huh?” looks, but I think you catch the drift.

“Change” is a perennial favorite catchphrase in the arsenal of the challenger. Former President Clinton’s chief strategist, James Carville, affixed a sign near his desk at the campaign’s headquarters in Little Rock in 1992 reminding his team to stay on message. The choice, he repeated every day, was between “change and more of the same.”

But legislating progress in our institutions — particularly in the Senate — is molded more by incremental consensus than Big Bang transformations. One of the most insightful analysts of public policy-making in this country is political scientist Charles O. Jones. In his book, “Separate But Equal Branches: Congress and the Presidency,”he articulates why transformation is normally slow, writing that “the separated system is not well designed to produce major changes in a short period of time. Dividing power across institutions and between levels of government results in protracted decision-making. Many persons have the legitimate right to participate in such a system. Various forms of representation are permitted, with the result that the best-laid plans are subjected to lengthy consideration through an elaborate lawmaking process.”

Unless Democrats can count 60 solid votes in the Senate, change without compromise is impossible. But when was the last time you heard one of their presidential candidates talking about building consensus and reaching across the aisle so that real change could occur? This gap between rhetoric and reality is what turns so many people off about politics. No one has the candor to tell people that in a separated system, changes only occur when the political class finds consensus.

During his first term, for example, President Bush reached out to Democrats and with their cooperation found common ground on issues such as tax cuts, education reform and Medicare. Even though they were in the minority in the Senate when Mr. Bush first took office, these initiatives would be bankrupt without the active collaboration of some Democratic senators. In order to fulfill any campaign pledges, all of the Democratic hopefuls — if they win the White House — will have to do the same with Republican senators. But how? Promises of change prey on America’s bottomless vault of hope and optimism.

“If someone can do better, let’s give them a chance,” sums up a wide swath of our political ethos. So, it’s not surprising that presidential candidates continue to use this language. Yet after all these years of rhetorical counterfeit, it is a bit astounding that more Americans don’t ask the tough questions about how the candidates plan to achieve these transformations.