The Politics of Change

It was an election year, and there was a war on against a fanatical group of militants willing to do anything it took to win the fight. The upcoming presidential race was hotly debated, and the race seemed incredibly close. One candidate was older, with a lot of life experience. The other was young, energetic, with little political experience but calling for CHANGE. His argument, and the argument of his party, was that the nation had had enough of war and the old regime, and there was a need for a new kind of change in Washington that would shake up the political scene. One had life and political experience on his side, having spent decades in Washington politics. The other had youthful exuberance on his side, winning over those who wanted a change in the way things were run. These two candidates picked intriguing running mates as Vice-Presidential candidates, and both focused on changing the status quo in their political campaigns, lending legitimacy to their politics.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Sounds like what we are watching play out in the arena of 21st Century American politics? Actually, this scenario describes the the election of 1944.

In 1944, the Republican party picked a liberal, progressive, young governor from New York to serve as their presidential candidate. Thomas Dewey was 42, and he called for change in the way the government was being run. Meanwhile, Franklin Delanore Roosevelt was running for an unprecedented fourth term as President on the Democrat ticket. He had been in office throughout the Great Depression, the New Deal, and WWII. In order to improve his chances, FDR dropped his former Vice President (Henry Wallace) for Harry Truman, a little known politician from Missouri.

Now the opposition was questioning his ability to run the country. Thomas Dewey came on the scene calling for a change in the status quo. Essentially, CHANGE NOW was his whole mantra.

Sound familiar? It seems history is destined to repeat itself...