Suppose you’re driving down the highway at 70 MPH due west to a destination some 100 miles distant. Which of the following constitute “change”?
Speeding up to 85.
Stomping on the brakes.
Leaving the highway to travel due north at 30 MPH through a freshly mowed field.
Swinging the car around and proceeding due east at 70 MPH.
Abandoning the car and continuing west by somersaulting head-over-feet down the median.
Of course, all of these constitute “change”. And that brings us to this little video of Barack Obama referring to Ronald Reagan as an agent of change in a way that neither Nixon nor Clinton were:
There’s been considerable uproar on the left side because of this, including the following diatribe from John Edwards:
Really? He’d never use Reagan as an example of change? That’s crazy. Reagan was an example of regressive change and Edwards put forth a number of reasons why. Some people seem to think that change can only be positive. Nope. Hitler was an agent of change. Mao was an agent of change. When they arrived, things changed alright; they just didn’t change for the better.
The talking heads need to get off Obama’s back on this one. What he said was factually correct. He did not say nor imply (as the title of the video suggests) that Reagan was a great president or that he prefers Reagan’s policies to Bill Clinton’s. The statements of Obama and Edwards are not mutually exclusive.