Not so long ago, I found myself face-to-face with a teenage Obama supporter. When asked why she plans to vote for the Senator (not that she really will vote at all), she said, “I’m just ready for a change.” When asked if she knew any of his voting record or history as an elected official, either at the state or federal levels, she admitted that she knows absolutely nothing about the man other than he is a strangely attractive African-American dude with a funny name who keeps talking about “change.” At that point, I asked her if she was looking for a good change or bad one, and she definitively leaned towards the positive. Her sense of enlightenment restored, I chose to avoid the third option of no change at all just so her fresh-faced, wide-eyed idealism would remain intact for at least another six months. The smart money is on Option #3, though.

There are few things worse than the politician promising change at the Federal level. (Can anyone name the last significant change coming from the Executive Branch?) Let’s put this in perspective. In the Executive Branch alone, there are over 1.75 million employees excluding the Postal Service, CIA, NSA, DIA, and NIMA. Nine out of 10 work outside of the D.C. area. Roughly 650,000 of them are general or operations managers, 29,000 are fiscal managers, and another 45,000 are management “analysts.” There are 15 Cabinet departments and 90 other independent agencies. To put this in perspective for you, Wal-Mart had 1.9 million employees (2007), General Electric had 319,000 (2007), and McDonald’s had 465,000 (2005). No matter how you look at it, that by itself represents a lot of entrenchment, establishment, habit, complacency, and bureaucracy. That’s bureaucracy that covers a lot of people and a lot of territory. Go to one DMV in one state, and get a taste of government inaction – I mean, government in action. But Obama equals change for the entire country. Right?

Let’s stack the deck a little more and bring Congress into the conversation. In the House, there are 435 Representatives, split 234 for the Democrats and 198 for the Republicans. Tilted in Obama’s favor, no doubt, but their terms only last two years, and the split can shift.  In the Senate, there are 100 career politicians presently split down party lines 49, 49, and 2 (independents), which guarantees zilch when it comes to campaign promises. The Senate holds the power to “advise and consent” on appointments to the Cabinet, to the heads of most Federal agencies, ambassadors, Supreme Court Justices, and federal judges. They also have 16 standing committees that oversee departments and agencies of the Executive Branch. Will Congressmen suddenly want less pork during an Obama presidency? Will they suddenly not politicize everything down to the acquisition of Charmin toilet paper instead of Cottonelle? Will they suddenly earn their exorbitant salaries?

And what Presidential effectiveness discussion would be complete without mentioning the Judicial Branch (otherwise known at Legislative Branch Lite)? With 678 Federal District Court judges, nine Supreme Court Justices, and 13 Courts of Appeals, easy change is all but assured. Afterall, people who are all but guaranteed employment for life (Article III judges) regardless of their verdicts and politics are known for embracing change – and quickly. I am sure that Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Allito will be floored by his audacity of hope and rubber stamp every attempt to impose Liberalism on the masses. Truthfully, Obama’s only legitimate hope of change comes if Justices Kennedy or Scalia retire while a Democratic Senate is still en vogue. 

But wait! There’s more! We haven’t even mentioned State and local governments and their impacts on the miraculous change we can believe in. Would he inspire all the governors, State legislatures, mayors, city councils, county boards, and other elected officials to change for the better? Would they change at all?

So what changes can he guarantee should he win? Would he have the benefit of a Democratic Congress after years of famously low ratings and ridiculous wastes of time? Would he have the ability to sufficiently install the people who would have the desire to inforce and execute his changes? Would he find the war so easy to end if he was the Commander-in-Chief? Would he dare to actually answer journalists’ hard questions directly? Would he dare to actually speculate if he was faced with facts?