The newest political cliche is the call to "change." Everyone says "change" is what we need: Obama says it, Edwards says it, Romney says it. Of course, as Fred Thompson pointed out the other day, every election means change, unless you vote for the incumbent - and since there's no incumbent in the 2008 presidential election, then any possible result will produce change from the status quo. But what if the electorate doesn't want change? What if they are fine with how things are, more less, but just can't stand Bush? That seems to be what economist and author Bryan Caplan is hinting at in this thought-provoking Washington Post article:
Public opinion data strongly confirm that the status quo is popular. All the big components of the federal budget enjoy broad support. When asked whether government should do less of something, more of something or stick with the status quo, the average American almost always sticks with what he has. The only iron-clad counter-example is foreign aid. Most Americans have wanted less of it for decades. But since foreign aid is about 1 percent of the federal budget, we can safely call it the exception that proves the rule. Surely Americans want serious change on Iraq, you say? True, about 60 percent of Americans now say that the war was a mistake. But given the available options, voters are still getting what they want. If Iraq were a stable and enthusiastic ally, we'd like to leave today, but that's not on the menu. Most Americans now favor a timetable for withdrawal, but how many would want to stick to a schedule if that meant handing Iraq over to radical Islamists? In a few years, the majority may be ready for 'peace at any price' - but not yet.
One of the interesting storylines to follow during the first two years of the Obama presidency will be just how much "change" the American people want. My guess: Not as much as you think! Which means that the GOP probably can look forward to a good year in 2010.