08/17/2008
By Gary Truitt
The word change is defined by the dictionary as “to make the form, nature, content, future course, etc. of (something) different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone.” In an election, it means “vote for me because the other guy has screwed things up.” The word change is being used a lot this election year. Making change the foundation of your campaign is a safe bet. It allows you to criticize your opponent while not offering any specific ideas of your own. By simply saying, “we will do things differently,” you can promise action without getting too detailed on what that action will be. The change approach is very appealing to voters who are dissatisfied with the way things are. Most voters will vote for change just to try something new in the hope that it will be better than the status quo. But is change always good? History has taught us over and over that sometimes doing something new is actually worse than leaving things alone, no matter how bad they seem.
The call for change vs. the status quo was the glaring difference between the two candidates for Indiana’s Lt. Governor during the recent debate on agriculture held at the Indiana State Fair. During the debate between incumbent Republican Becky Skillman and Democratic challenger Dennis Oxley, it was often hard to find differences between the candidates. Both said agriculture was the backbone of the Indiana economy; both support development of biofuels and especially cellulose ethanol; both support continued expansion of the livestock industry; and the list goes on. Yet, the two had very different approaches to dealing with these issues. Oxley called for change. He maintained the current approach was not working and the current administration was not inclusive. “We want to bring everyone to the table,” he said. Skillman, on the other hand, stressed saying the course. She said tremendous progress had been made in the past four years and promised to keep that momentum going.
Oxley’s call for change gave him the ability to throw stones at the current administration and talk about how bad things are. Yet, even here, he spoke in generalities because, for the most part, things are not that bad. That is not to say there are not problems or that individuals and individual sectors of agriculture are not suffering, but, on balance, the ag industry is enjoying better income, better growth, better opportunities, and more attention than it has in a very long time - if ever.
While it was hard to find objective voices in the highly partisan crowd at the debate, a few producers I did speak with said they were not receptive to the call for change. They were pleased with the approach of the past 4 years and were not looking to fix a problem that did not exist. Politics aside, the Daniels/Skillman administration has addressed issues in Indiana agriculture in a way and to a degree that have never been done before. The results, while not perfect, are impressive and, in my opinion, do not warrant a change.
There are things that need to be changed, like our energy policy and our immigration policy just to name two. Here the current policies (or lack thereof) are not working and a new approach is needed. Let’s work to change the things that need to be changed and not the things that do not need to be changed.
change_1.jpg
WebReadyTM Powered by WireReady®NSI
