Politics

Obama: Ideology's Just Another Word for My Opponents' Motivation

|

Miss the big speech tonight? Congratulations; I don't think it's going to move many people off their posts. My quick take is that President Obama evinces zero understanding of the concept of economic incentives. He can add serious new requirements on insurance companies, force healthy young people to insure themselves, and force companies to pay for the health insurance of their employees, all while claiming, apparently without irony, and definitely without accuracy, that his "guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition." He also thinks that he can once again get away with claiming that "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period." We've heard that one before, ya know….

For my money the crucial section, containing both the president's tantalizing oratorical promise and the seeds of his fundamental con, came after he dramatically read a letter from the late Ted Kennedy:

I've thought about that phrase quite a bit in recent days – "the character of our country." One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government. And figuring out the appropriate size and role of government has always been a source of rigorous and sometimes angry debate. 

For some of Ted Kennedy's critics, his brand of liberalism represented an affront to American liberty.  In their mind, his passion for universal health care was nothing more than a passion for big government.

But those of us who knew Teddy and worked with him here – people of both parties – know that what drove him was something more. His friend, Orrin Hatch, knows that. They worked together to provide children with health insurance.  His friend John McCain knows that. They worked together on a Patient's Bill of Rights.  His friend Chuck Grassley knows that. They worked together to provide health care to children with disabilities.

On issues like these, Ted Kennedy's passion was born not of some rigid ideology, but of his own experience.  It was the experience of having two children stricken with cancer.  He never forgot the sheer terror and helplessness that any parent feels when a child is badly sick; and he was able to imagine what it must be like for those without insurance; what it would be like to have to say to a wife or a child or an aging parent – there is something that could make you better, but I just can't afford it.

That large-heartedness – that concern and regard for the plight of others – is not a partisan feeling.  It is not a Republican or a Democratic feeling.  It, too, is part of the American character.  Our ability to stand in other people's shoes.  A recognition that we are all in this together; that when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand.

A belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.

This has always been the history of our progress.  In 1933, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism. But the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it.

In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, did not back down.  They joined together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic peace of mind.

You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem.  They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom.

But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be exploited.

And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter – that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges.  We lose something essential about ourselves.

Other reactions?