Not just a pile of change

Caroline Kennedy's op-ed piece in the NY Times had me thinking. Much has been said about Obama's ability to unify, to hope, and to inspire. The word "hope" has been tossed around campaigns now as well as 8 years ago. I'll leave that word to the pundits and those that epitomize the word for themselves. I've already grown tired of the word "change." To me, it just symbolizes a difference and a break from our lame-duck president. What is intriguing is the word "inspire." I spent some time trying to think of any politician, here or around the world, that fits that description. Perhaps Nelson Mandela, one of my political heroes.

This brings me to a larger question. Does our vote constitute an endorsement of the candidate for who he or she is as a person, what he or she stands for, or the issues that he or she supports? [Note that I'm excited to be able to say "he or she."]

I know that I tend to vote on issues, a stance problematic in that I often don't agree with a candidate on all issues. Being far too young to remember the Kennedy era, I have grown up with an innate cynicism and suspicion of politics and politicians. For me, my mistrust of politicians extends deeper than a belief that federal politics are rooted in partisanship and special interests. I haven't felt as if my trust has been broken because I've never felt as if by voting, I've placed my trust in the candidate. Rather, I vote because I feel it's my meager opportunity to participate and by doing so, I take a stand on issues, if not the candidate. Interestingly, as Kennedy writes,

There is a generation coming of age that is hopeful, hard-working, innovative and imaginative. But too many of them are also hopeless, defeated and disengaged.

With this in mind, it seems a misnomer to describe the candidates as candidates for change, candidates of change, or candidates that have changed so many times that we don't know their true standing. It seems as if we are looking at candidates that operate under different ideologies rather than merely policy and personality differences. We've swung around to who defines a leader, rather than who merely possesses leadership. And that is a very exciting promise.