One notion that I’ve seen bouncing around the Internet and the news waves is that many of the familiar faces that Obama is bringing into his adminstration somehow represent a betrayal of his campaign mantra of change. To me, this notion betrays a lack of serious though taking place in the minds of those who espouse it.
“Change” is a ridiculously vague term, which I believe was by design in the Obama campaign. Change from what? The Obama campaign never really filled in the blank except to repudiate any unfavorable suggestions as to what it meant. Instead, they let people fill in the blanks themselves. So, during the primary, it carried a feeling as a break from the nepotism that characterised the current President’s rise to power that would be somewhat reflected if Hillary Clinton won. During the general election it carried more of a break from Bush feel.
So, “Change” can mean anything. Anything that isn’t the current status quo would be a change, and Obama certainly isn’t reusing the Bush Cabinet. He isn’t exactly reusing the Clinton Cabinet either, though it seems that he will be using some of the personell who worked under Clinton and a fewer number that worked under Bush. Is this a problem? Hardly. I want our government to be run by a mix of those who have worked in government before and some new people to take their place as they learn the ropes. This is because my chief concern is competence, not some vague notion of change. I want a government that is competent and efficient and gets the job done while using less resources. That would be a change and a welcome one.