The mantra of the 2008 presidential election is “change.” Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama appear to be having a contest to see who can say the word the most times (or with the most feeling). Let’s think about change for a moment. First, note that change can be for the better or for the worse. The former is called “progress,” the latter “regress.” What Clinton and Obama want is not change simpliciter, but change for the better. They want to move forward, not backward. Second, one person’s progress is another person’s regress. Clinton and Obama think coercing people into purchasing health insurance is progress. I and many others think it is regress. There are few changes that are universally viewed as progress, even in a homogeneous society. So what Clinton and Obama want, really, are changes that they and many or most people view as progress. Third, progress, like any other good, has costs. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Wouldn’t it be nice if Clinton and Obama (1) specified which changes they want and (2) quantified the costs and benefits of each change, so as to (3) rationally persuade people to support their proposals? This would be work, obviously, and it would make explicit what they want to keep hidden, which is the costs of the changes they propose. Their goal is to mobilize, not antagonize. Finally, nobody, not even the most hidebound conservative, is categorically opposed to change, so calling for change without specifying which changes you’re calling for is vacuous. The only people it can affect are (1) those who are bored with the status quo and prefer change for its own sake and (2) those who believe that the status quo is thoroughly bad, so that any change must be for the better.

Addendum: There are three other aspects or dimensions of change:

1. Magnitude. There are big changes and there are small changes. Other things being equal, conservatives prefer small changes to big changes. Progressives either have no preference at all or prefer big changes to small changes.

2. Pace. Change can take place quickly or slowly. Other things being equal, conservatives prefer slow change to quick change. Progressives either have no preference at all or prefer quick change to slow change.

3. Source. Change can come from within or without the institution or practice concerned. Other things being equal, conservatives prefer endogenous change to exogenous change. Progressives either have no preference at all or prefer exogenous change to endogenous change.

I should write a column about change for Tech Central Station. How many of you would like that?

Addendum 2: Here is a column by Timothy Noah.