The political candidates and the lies of "change"

The lies political candidates tell the public during election campaigns are not unique to the United States or to this day and age.

On the eve of the 1940 presidential elections, Franklin D. Roosevelt and his republican opponent, Wendell Willkie, were dragged into a liars' feud. Willkie accused Roosevelt of intending to take America into the war. Roosevelt denied this: "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."

Of course, both Roosevelt and Willkie realized that America would ultimately become involved - by choice or necessity - in the war that had been raging in Europe. But the middle of an election campaign wasn't the time to explain this to the public.

The American national state of mind, which is measured at almost ridiculously short intervals, will determine the outcome of the presidential elections to take place in one year minus three days. What are they feeling? Anger and frustration. What do they want? Change.

Forty-five percent of Americans argue that the war in Iraq is the most important subject on the agenda. Six out of 10 say going to war was not a wise decision. But politics is playing tricks on them, just as it had in the days of Roosevelt and Willkie.

No leading candidates, whether Republican or Democrat, can guarantee their voters real change, meaning an end to the war. The Democrats, who gained a majority in Congress exactly one year ago, have failed in their repeated attempts to force a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq on President George W. Bush.

That is why the candidates are trying to settle for general statements while diverting the discussion to other arenas, like Iran. "The Republicans will drag us into another war," the Democrats shout. "The Democrats will give Iran nukes," the Republicans warn.

Actually, both parties agree that increasing sanctions against the Islamic Republic is the key action to be taken right now, and both parties refuse to preclude the military option as a possibility. On the Iranian issue as well, the key factor is not one of policy but of personality: Who will the American public trust to make the right decision at the right time?

The U.S. would not reelect President Bush, but he isn't running. So the comparisons between the 2008 campaign and the 1980 elections - which saw President Ronald Reagan's famous question: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" - don't necessarily hold water.

There is no one to play the part Jimmy Carter played in that election campaign - the part of a banged-up president ready to be kicked out of office. As the Israeli public has come to realize, political movements based on popular demand for change are whimsical: a disgruntled declaration of discontent, because change is guaranteed; a new president will come, regardless of his or her persuasion.

Will the new president-elect put in place a new policy? Maybe, to some degree. In most pertinent issues, policy change is far from certain.

There is a noticeable degree of irony in how tritely familiar the required change is. After all, polls suggest that the Americans, while speaking of change, intend to replace one dynasty, the Bushes, with another, the Clintons. A recent Pew poll shows that support for the hopeful former first lady owes mainly to "policy" (35 percent). Her "personality" commands much less support (7 percent).

This information is particularly peculiar because the seasoned Mrs. Clinton is successful at camouflaging her stances and is wisely refraining from committing to far-reaching promises. Maybe it's the American equivalent of former prime minister Sharon's winning silence - the same strategy that Defense Minister Ehud Barak uses for his own current needs.

The Democrat Clinton and the leading Republican candidate, Rudy Giuliani, are promising less change than the other hopefuls. That is, they are promising change, but it's hard to say how this change will reveal itself.

Clinton is without doubt the most hawkish version of a Democratic candidate that America has right now. Giuliani has surrounded himself with advisers from the neoconservative camp that proved so dominant in Bush's administration.

Small wonder, then, that Giuliani's strength in the polls stems from leadership (46 percent) and not policy (15 percent).

Today on Rosner's Domain:

What To Read:
Upturn in positive views of the war in Iraq

Previous blog:
Should American Jews have a voice in shaping Israel's policies?

Rosner's Guest:
Trying to integrate Judaism and feminism