How the nominalization of change found its home...in the White House

I find myself playing with the word 'change' again.  The problem with the word "change" is that, through the evolutionary process of language, it has recently been nominalized (changed from a verb to a noun), and it in the process it has taken on a whole raft of generalization.  Some examples of where 'change' used in business:

• Change as in behavioural change - somehow influencing the folks in the organisation to alter what they do.
• Change as in organisational change - re-organising the reporting lines of the organisation to try to alter the way it performs.
• Change as in project change - modifying the scope of a project to alter what it delivers.
• Change as in asset change - modifying the assets being used in controlled fashion.

I'm sure there are many more...but my point is that outside of politics, it's generally a good idea to use an adjective when you use the word 'change'.

But inside of politics 'Change' has found a home...in the White House!  Barack Obama found a beautiful influencing tool in this word by appealing to our general dissatisfaction with the status quo. It's so generalized, that includes the word 'Improvement' somehow!  It's interesting to me how the most vague words carry the most power:  Freedom, Justice, Equality, Right, Value, Quality,  Prosperity, Prudence (dear Mr. Brown)...all must be spelled henceforth with a capital letter to signify that they are being used to manipulate.

-- Philip Greenwood