Change: Dissecting a Slogan

February 8, 2008

By Jerald Jellison

“Change” is the cotton candy of the presidential campaign. Whipped into an airy concoction, “change” appeals to the senses but offers little nutrition.

“Change” is a big word, and that’s why it’s so attractive to politicians. It conveys a strong sense that actions will be taken and that things will be improved. In and of itself, the word “change” doesn’t specify the method or the outcomes to be achieved. This provides the grounds for nuanced differences between candidates.

Obama highlights the notion that we must believe in change as the first step to improvement. By contrast, Clinton focuses on the later stages of the change process. She emphasizes that experience and hard work — not mere belief — will be critical to making change happen.

Because of its glittering generality, “change” can serve as a code word, to be redefined over and over. It may mean a change in war strategy in one setting, a reduction of taxes for another audience, and improved health care benefits to another voter group.

“Change” is to the Democrats what “national security” is to the Republicans. Republicans eschew the word “change” because they generally favor the status quo. There’s no need to talk about doing things differently when your central goal is to preserve things the way they are. Plus, “change” conveys the idea that current policies and practices aren’t working — an obvious criticism of the past eight years under a Republican president.

Psychologist Jerald Jellison of the USC College has been writing about change and people’s responses to it for 15 years. His latest book, Managing the Dynamics of Change, was published last year.