The New Nation - Internet Edition

Dr.Abdul Ruff

Presdient George W. Bush will leave his office in 2009 February and the debates in the current US elction primaries revolve around a few issues, the need for new policies to accelerate development and progress being one of the most important. One of the most frequently heard mantras on the presidential campaign trail this year, therefore, has been the call for "change." Several of the leading presidential candidates have adopted "change" as a campaign theme and have rushed to claim that they themselves are the candidates for change. Barack Obama has made change the central motif of his campaign from the beginning, saying he is for "real" change in Washington that got him through in Iowa primary. Former President Bill Clinton responded to Obama's claim to own the "change" theme by saying Obama is the "establishment" candidate and would engender only the "feeling of change." Republican Mitt Romney put out a press release entitled, "Governor Mitt Romney Calls for Change."

It's abundantly clear that Americans want a change from the presidency of George W. Bush, at a time when Bush's job approval rating has been stuck in the 30% to 35% range for many months. But exactly what form that "change" should take has been a little murky. Change is such a broad concept that-like a Rorschach inkblot test-an individual can read into it what he or she wants. One can seek a change from the way in which the Bush administration (and/or Congress) operates, a change in specific policy decisions, or perhaps just a more general change in the type of inspirational leadership the country has. A recent news story about Republican hopeful John McCain also calls himself 'Agent of Change". Given Americans' low levels of satisfaction with the way things are going in the United States, their very low ratings of government, Congress, and the president, and their low satisfaction level with the way the government system works, the desire for change is not surprising.

The top four problems Americans mention in our January "most important problem" update are Iraq; the economy, healthcare, and immigration, the specific areas in which Americans want to see "change" take place. But there is very little discussion in these open-ends of a desire to bring about more fundamental changes in the way Washington operates, in the process of governing, and so forth.

Threat perceptions make the peole in the USA think well of the government and it works. Back in 2001, before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, satisfaction with the government was at 68%. That rose in January 2002 to 76%, but has been declining ever since, to the current 53%.

The latest findings continue a trend of declining satisfaction in recent years. This finding is significant. First and foremost, it is clear when Americans look ahead to the "change" the next president could bring about, they think very topically and specifically about problems and concerns, not about more general changes in the structure or systems of government.

It suggests that when Americans say they want the next president to bring about change, they mainly are thinking about solving what they perceive to be the nation's significant problems. End of Iraqi war, withdrawal of troups to USA, health care reforms, fix economy, creat more jobs, secure boraders, address illegal immigrations, change in tax laws, change US freeingn policy and improve US image abroad, better honesty and ethics in government, tranparancy in government dealings, etc.

True, Bush won't continue upon completing his second term now, and the onus lies on the next presdeint to change the overall perspective of the US polcies and the Neo-cons would have to leave the matter to another set of strategists to formualte polcies and strategies for the future USA. Only that would help the USA overcome its problems.

Teeorism plank cannot go on endlessly and collective security could be the best option for a secure world. Hence the heated discussion now taking place in the USA on change, but they should also discuss threadbare the deficiences of the governing system plugged by ramphant corruption and neoptism at all levesls of governance.