Are These The Candidates of Change?

Today on Super Tuesday when the two presidential candidates will most likely become apparent, each campaign appears to be talking about "change." I wonder if we are speaking about "change" in the right way.

When I talk about change, it is normally associated with positive, progressive, forward thinking milestones being reached in society and with equality. Moreover it is sweeping change that brings tangible improvement to the lives of not only all minorities, but all people.

Instead, as I look at the candidates, I am struck by the fact that the most that is being offered is the promise of progress - an indefinite process through which we hope change will occur over some time but without any specific timeline.

I am not an incrementalist - probably never will be. I want it all and I want it now; because it's right and proper, and because other countries - even ones that struggle to feed and shelter their own citizens and who are steeped in hundreds of years of religious rule - have made these changes already.

I will not clap when a Senator from the state of New York stands two feet in front of me and answers a question about her thoughts on marriage equity and instead tells me it's a "state issue." I am heartened when the "real candidate for change" stands in a black church and speaks against homophobia, but dismayed when he never speaks on the need to end it completely to achieve equality.

I demand equality without asterisks, without caveats. That's something I can support.

I want change that does not shift the prejudices and oppression of the mainstream to the minority on the next rung down on the ladder We do this, eager to shift the harsh glare of societal contempt from one group to the next, without regard for the consequences to our collective freedom.

I want change in every area of society the way Spain handled the marriage equity issue. I challenge anyone to suggest Spain is not a legitimately religious country. Yet, with a handful of words added to their constitution, and a few eloquent sentences from their Prime Minister, the legislation passed. In fact, when the law was passed, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Spain's Prime Minister, said simply, "...a decent society is one that does not humiliate its members."

When I talk about change in the context of social justice, equality and social advancement, I am not discounting progress. Progress is important and it gives us hope. And while it may only influence a small part of society, it remains a beacon for the whole. But progress is a process and not a goal, and we must not be placated by the process causing us to lose sight of the goals.

Equality of opportunity is a goal worth fighting for. It would demand real change demonstrated by legislation, public policy and a revolutionary shift in our society's attitudes towards differences. The result would be a society where women no longer bang their heads against the glass ceiling, and people of color, the poor, the GLBT and every other minority community cease to be legally marginalized and federally humiliated. This changed society would reflect at long last a world where everyone is able to achieve some measure of equal access to the oft talked about, but elusive, American dream of having the same opportunities, responsibilities and restrictions as everyone else.

Change resonates through the entire of society and in its wake whole groups of people have tangibly better lives, more rights, responsibilities and protections. I am looking for this when I hear politicians speak of change.

I look at my options for November 2008: a maverick Veteran, a Mormon businessman, a female "voice of experience" and the bi-racial "candidate for real change" and I don't feel spoilt for choice.

It won't mean a change for America just to elect a woman or black person to the helm. I cringe when people suggest it, the subtext being somewhere between "we recognize how hard it is for a minority to rise to these heights (but we don't want too many of you trying)" and a pat-on-the-back of "aren't we a brave and noble nation for considering a woman and a black guy to lead us!"

I haven't made up my mind. But of the two candidates I can look at without bile rising in my throat, I'd take either over another Republican with more surges, abstinence-only programs, anti-abortion legislation and misappropriated evangelical furor. Because I too feel I must be satisfied with progress, even if I don't see it leading to real change in real time - or even in my lifetime.