Video
Twitter
RSS Feed
Obama Is The Moral High Ground
The struggle for decent, affordable health care for all Americans is a test of the national character. That was the President's overarching message in his speech on health care to the joint session of Congress.
With five different congressional committee bills, four of which have been marked up and one yet to come, specific details are not exactly under the President's control. What is clearly under the President's control, however, is the moral high ground. This isn't just any other legislation, Obama argued. This time, health care reform is a test of whether America can deliver on its fundamentals, "the fundamental issues of social justice." Is that our national character, or have we really become just the pawns of a runaway corporate culture, bent on profit at the expense of the common good?
This is some character test. In some ways, watching the President and the Congress, I felt like I was back in High School civics class, complete with class bully. There's always some clown in the back who doesn't want to grow up and who thinks it's cool to razz the teacher by yelling inappropriate things. Then there are the guys who text during class, pointedly tuning out the lesson. Finally, because Congress is a very exclusive school, there are the over-achievers, always in the front row, who really want to be noticed. Character education is clearly needed.
Obama not only taught the lesson, he is the lesson. He's a grown-up faced with an America that needs to grow up and face the fact that we are not a brash young nation any more. We need to realize we're citizens of the world and we need to start to act like it. We need to lead by example, not by acting out or acting up. The childish bickering at the "Town Halls" is broadcast around the world and it diminishes respect for us as a nation.
This speech on health care was, in that sense, a reprise of the Inaugural Address -- the theme of which was, surprisingly to many, 'Oh, grow up.' It was signal to the citizens of this nation that they could no longer afford not to be adults.
The Inaugural message was based on Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians. "We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things."
Real grownups take responsibility. Decent health care for all Americans is a responsibility that we must take seriously. It is a test of national character.
.
By
Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite
|
September 9, 2009; 11:38 PM ET
Share This: 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: A Deeper Question |
Next: Only the Gods Should be Armed
Posted by: wrightnow | September 22, 2009 12:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
This is a religious commentary?
Posted by: k_romulus | September 11, 2009 10:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The overall tone of Susan's article is that Mr. Obama's speech represented a mature, reasoned approach to an issue that has generated a lot of shrillness (which is probably true), and that he showed that if you approach the problem that way, you can come up with a solution. THAT is the crux of the issue.
I don't think Mr. Obama's plan adds up mathematically. Promising revenue-neutrality by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse is politicians' (note the plural) favorite something-for-nothing. Other ideas, like interstate insurance pools and tort reform, will run into constitutional problems of state sovereignty, or invite racing to the bottom like credit cards.
Has Mr. Obama taken the "moral high ground" by promising what he can't deliver at the cost he proposed? Or is Susan's idea of moral high ground that his idea must be implemented, and only an immoral Congress, Republican Party or American people would refuse to pay for it.
Posted by: WmarkW | September 11, 2009 9:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Judging from the early response to this post by Susan, the idea of the moral high ground is lost on many outside congress as well.
Posted by: MGT2 | September 10, 2009 6:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I agree with Mark, and I have attached 2 links which, I hope, demonstrate that we should never deify a politician.
The first link is a list of the top 'bundled' individual campaign contributors to Barack Obama's election campaign (Note: This list does not include the hundreds of millions of dollars in untraceable donations which he received via the democratic party).
Voila:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
If you read the list you will see that individuals of 4 'banks' (citigroup, morgan stanley, J.P. morgan, and Goldman and Sachs) donated approximately $2.9 million to Obama.
One of Obama's first acts as president was the bank bail out. During this bail out, these same 4 top contributors to the Obama campaign received a total of 70 BILLION dollars from the United States Treasury. (see: http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/storysupplement/bankbailout/)
Now, I'm no banker but that is a very nice return on investment. I wish the rest of the American citizens could have received a similar increase in their 401k plans after the crises. Even if I hold back my cynicism and assume these banks actually did pay back our tax dollars eventually. How much money does 70 billion dollars earn in interest when it sits in a bank for one day? One month? One year? I'm guessing it is quite a bit more than 2.9 million dollars.
The reason I bring this up is because I feel it is naive to think that President Obama is not being swayed by the same motivations and intentions during this health care debate as he was during the construction of 'our' bail out package.
Posted by: globalfuture1 | September 10, 2009 6:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
One should never apply the term "Moral high ground" to a politician.
Read the facts, if you dare.
Here is a little humor that has a lot of truth in it:
Def: Politics: Poli; meaning many, and Tics; meaning blood-sucking little insects.
Mark
Always seek the truth.
Posted by: volkmare | September 10, 2009 2:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It's been a couple of weeks since that speech, and it seems clear that what's being sought is not the moral high ground, but winning a political battle at nearly any cost.
The implication that the only moral position is to support the current administration's direction on health care--that there should be more Federal government intrusion--suggests a lack of perspective or seriousness.
Indeed, one of the most compelling reasons for opposing greater government, especially Federal government, interference is out of a concern for those less fortunate. The size and scope of the Federal government is no indication whatsoever of our individual or collective commitment or ability to care for others.
In the current debate it is surprising that so many from private organizations, especially religious organizations, have so little faith in themselves and their members that they see no alternative than to bring the force of the state to compel specific behaviors.
The commitment to care for others can not be surrendered by the passage of legislation or assigned to someone else through law or regulation.