This is me. This is me trying to resist mentioning Sarah Palin.

See how long that lasted?

But I want to talk about Palin in the context in which she appears to have been picked: as a fresh, young face in the Republican party; a candidate of change, if you’re into that sort of thing. More generally, I want to wonder aloud about the vernacular that has emerged in this presidential race.

During the Democratic primary we heard complaints piled on complaints about the lack of substantive difference between the two major candidates; as a result we spent a lot of time talking about health-care mandates and troop withdrawal deadlines, but nothing compared to how much time we spent talking about change, hope and experience. Was there any comfort to be found? Yes! And we were told time and again, by both candidates, that their differences were nothing compared to the differences between each and their likely Republican opponent. Just wait until the general, we decided, when we’ll really start to hear contrasts drawn between our candidate and the Republican.

And we have. But–and make sure you’re sitting down, now–the contrasts as drawn up by the Democrat himself at his convention have been of the same talismanic breed we got in the primary. Now instead of Hope and Change vs. Experience, it’s Change vs. More of the Same. To be fair, Obama’s speech was pretty plentifully seasoned with policy visions and relatively detailed ambitions for his administration. But the more subtle, implicit messages we absorbed from the surrounding white noise of minor speeches, common turns of phrase and rythmic chants were all of that same paradigm: “That’s not Change, that’s More of the Same!”

I find this interesting as a method of transmitting political thought because it’s not devoid of substance; it’s just backwards. Change might be a talisman, but it’s a sign, and it represents a lot of important things we know (or seem to know) are meant by that. Universal health care, sanity in foreign policy and a halt to the conservative judicial revolution are all things we talk explicitly about less than we should; still, we seem to know that those are among the very things meant by our Democratic leaders when they tell us that John McCain doesn’t get Change and they do. And this is not to say we haven’t heard our issues preached out loud: what I mean by “backwards” is that these days, our themes draw out our specifics, rather than the other way around. As someone with an abiding affection for pragmatism in governance, I find this…interesting. Troubling? Maybe. What do you think.