Change to What?

I don't like writing too much about politics on my blog. That was my job before I had kids; it's not my job now. My blog is my hobby, not a job. So I don't plan to get down and dirty writing about politics this year even though the presidential election is in high gear.

With that in mind, I have only one thing to say about the Iowa caucuses last week. It seems that all of the talk is about "CHANGE." The commentary coming out of the caucus was that caucus-goers wanted change, that's what they are looking for in a candidate - someone who will bring change.

My question is, if that indeed really is the case - you need change, change to what? Polls report that some 80% of people in this country are happy with their lives. They are pleased with their personal situations. A brief review of all of the Christmas letters I received from friends and family reflect that opinion - 100% of them were happy and positive.

Honestly, Americans by and large are richer and better educated than they've ever been before. So what is this slogan "change" supposed to mean? That's so non-specific, so blah. I mean really, it doesn't make sense.

And beyond that, how do any of the current, legitimate candidates represent change? None of them do. It's just the hip phrase that's popular right now. But it means nothing. I can promise you, your life isn't going to be much different today than it will be next year with whomever gets elected. (The only exception is that your taxes are going to rise if a Dem is elected. Let that be on your conscience, Dem supporters.)

Anyway, I just think the whole "change" thing is stupid. I'm all about talking about issues and specific government programs that need improvement (but not on this blog, so skip the comment section, please), but don't bombard me with senseless, empty rhetoric.