The Presidential Change Savants

One of Mahatma Gandhi’s oft-quoted sayings is:

You must be the change you wish to see in the world.

According to Gandhiji, truth was both relative and absolute. Relative truth, according to him, was not a rigid thing and could change as his perception of a problem changed. As the fable goes apropos the above quotation, a mother had brought her young son to see the Mahatma because the boy had become obsessed about eating sugar. Gandhiji told them to return the following week. At that time he told the lad, “You must stop eating sugar.” The mother was puzzled and asked Gandhiji why he had not said this the previous week. Bapu replied, “You see, last week I, too, was eating a lot of sugar. I had to change myself before I could ask someone else to change.”

This anecdote illustrates why Mahatma Gandhi was different from other leaders. He was able to seek truth and change his own thought process if needed. In doing so, he made mistakes but that did not deter him. He was an effective leader who earned the credibility and respect of the people because he was able to walk the talk.

In this year’s US Presidential elections we have seen and heard so much from “change savants” that it may even be causing great concern to our nearest large neighbor, the Andromeda Galaxy M31. I have culled some information from each of their positions for comparison with Gandhi’s ideals of leadership.

Change Agent: John Sidney McCain

John McCain needs your vote because he is a Change Agent in 2008. In fact, he is the Greatest Change Agent of the Republican Party. He recently changed his stance from liking the New York Times when they endorsed him, to it currently being “not my favorite newspaper.” Instead of admitting mistakes and changing his perception, McCranky exhibits temper tantrums and changes his story. He was angry with Elisabeth Bumiller (also of the New York Times) who caught him in a lie in 2004. In that year, McCain’s staff approached John Kerry about potentially filling the Vice President slot on the Democratic ticket (yes, the Democratic ticket). Elisabeth broke the story and now McCain doesn’t want to talk about it. Need I say more as to why John McCain is hated by Rush Limbaugh and the dittohead kingdom? Many people associate the $12 billion per month being spent in Iraq to the current economic crisis (this is the recent estimate by Professor Joseph Stiglitz, co-author of “The Three Trillion Dollar War”). If the Straight-Talk Express runs on less taxes and more war, its wheels will go squeaky well before November.

Agent of Change: Barack Hussein Obama

He is touted as the Agent of Change in what many have called “the political phenomenon of the century.” George Bush said in 2000, “Vote for me, I’m an agent of change,” and proceeded to change the economy for the worse. Obama’s supporters are urged to avoid talking about policy and instead tell how they are inspired by him. When pressed for details on his policies and plans, we are offered evasiveness and distortions. Central to his message of change is the claim that he is free of lobbyist influence, except when convenient. Instead of being humble enough to admit mistakes and learning to change direction, he will be a leader who is “right from day one.” Obama likes to play by the rules with respect to the delegates in Florida and Michigan, but Agent of Change Obama wants to change the rules with respect to whom the super delegates should cast their votes for. His mantra, Sí se puede (Yes, we can), is carefully orchestrated political rhetoric that is in the business of selling an image. He needs to quickly recruit retired mailman, Karl Malone, and start delivering substance.

Positive Change Agent: Hillary Rodham Clinton

At a speech in Ames, Iowa, in December 2007, Bill Clinton introduced Hillary as a Positive Change Agent. He described her as a work-a-day leader who would work on behalf of ordinary Americans. “Over the past 14 years I’ve learned that when you want big changes, you need to build a big consensus,” Hillary says, adding, “Even a president has to get 60 votes in the Senate to pass a law, and that is a painstaking, roll-up-your-sleeves process that involves a lot of preparation and just plain perspiration.” But given their prior history in the White House, the Clintons’ tactics are somewhat questionable. Pulitzer Prize winner Samantha Power of Harvard University described her as a “monster who would do anything to win.” Unlike John Edwards, Hillary has not admitted that her vote for the Iraq war was a mistake. On the one hand, Hillary can bill herself as a change agent, and on the other, to those who don’t like change, she can “hit the ground running on day one because I have been there before.” Talking through both sides of your mouth does not go over well with voters.¹

Can these agents change their “thought processes if needed”? Can these agents “walk the talk”? Can these agents “be the change they wish to see in the world”?

Sólo podemos esperar (We can only hope).

Notes

1. This is an evolutionary survival mechanism which I will leave to more illuminating minds like Richard Dawkins to answer, i.e., why is it that only politicians and administrators amongst our species develop the trait of talking through both sides of their mouths? Is this the goal of evolution? Is there hope for ordinary folks to achieve this goal in the present life?