Opinion

CHANGE TO WHAT, EXACTLY?

‘C HANGE” is in the air – the hot air, anyway, from the presidential hopefuls.

Nearly every one of them vows to bring it about.

But what does it mean?

Barack Obama struck a chord in Iowa by making the C-word his mantra. Instantly, his fellow wannabes – even Republicans – became me-too agents of reform.

Mitt Romney, for example, suggested that he best “represents change.” John McCain granted as how that fit for Romney’s flip-flops – then vowed that he’d bring “genuine change” to Washington.

Voters, analysts say, are lapping it up. (Of course, analysts couldn’t hit the side of a barn in New Hampshire’s Democratic primary. But never mind.)

But what, exactly, do Americans want to change? It’s worth thinking through. After all, voters should be careful about what they vote for – lest they get it.

So let’s see . . .

There haven’t been any terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11. Who wants to “change” that?

The economy has pumped out new jobs for 52 months straight. Productivity’s soared, real income’s up, technology continues to revolutionize life – and anyone willing to work can usually find a job quickly. Reverse course there? Don’t think so.

Partisan bickering? Please. America’s thrived on it for 230-plus years. Why end it now?

How about this? Some 255 million Americans (85 percent of the population) have health coverage, most who don’t will get it soon – and anyone can get emergency care almost anytime anywhere, regardless of ability to pay. A system in dire need of fundamental reform? Maybe, but not the way “reformers” think.

OK. It must be the war in Iraq, then, that needs “change.” Horrific bloodshed there produced so much anxiety that voters in ’06 barred the president’s party from control of Congress.

Yet this year, post-surge, attacks and casualties are down. Troops are coming home. Are the apostles of change so set on a sudden course correction that they’re willing to throw away the gains and let the Mideast collapse?

Then there’s Hillary Clinton‘s definition after losing in Iowa: “Change,” she said, “will be a Democratic president in the White House.” And all the perks that come with that, presumably. Not exactly the noblest of causes.

Let’s face it: Discontent and disenchantment are hardly unusual in an imperfect nation of 300 million diverse Americans (especially those down on their luck).

Candidates, particularly those in the out-of-power party, stoke that resentment to drum up support. Promising change is their way of saying they can turn bad times into good ones.

But the assumption is that times are bad for the nation. And no candidate can make that case convincingly.

More important, none can say they’ve got the cure for our greatest woes.

Sure, it would be terrific if we could catch Osama, wipe out terror and never again have to remove our shoes at airports. But the jihadists are many. No candidate can purge them overnight. Americans should be grateful they’ve been spared another 9/11.

Yes, the economy faces challenges, as President Bush noted last week. But it’s subject to cycles; after several robust years, it headed south as Bill Clinton ended his presidency, too.

No doubt, some folks get less-than-ideal medical care. But providing every last American with maximum coverage – while keeping the nation solvent and not depleting resources – is surely impossible.

And, yes, the world faces big dangers even beyond the jihadists. North Korea, Iran, Russia, China – even Europe down the road – remain question marks. But here, too, the tides of global history aren’t easy to shift, even for strong presidents.

For the moment, America is riding pretty high. How much “change” is really needed here?

Again, there’s surely room for presidents to make life better – to lower taxes, improve schools, plug gaps at the border – you name it. And some candidates can do a better job at that than others.

But if any of them seriously wants to change the nation’s direction in fundamental ways, they’re apt to make things worse.

So what should a candidate do with his message when it promises too much reform?

Simple: Change it.

abrodsky@nypost.com