I was reading the transcript of President Obama's speech today to the Families USA Health Action Conference in Washington and ran across three paragraphs that, to me, express the core of his political philosophy.
To me, his philosophy is about line drawing between the dynamism of markets in creating wealth, products, and jobs, and the needs of people where the market does not do so, when the market impovrishes or creates gross inequality.
The paragraphs are after the fold.
Now, I’ve repeatedly said, I believe that our system of private insurance is strong and viable, and we need it to be. It saves lives. It employs large numbers of Americans. And by the way, it’s still making pretty good profits. But just as we are a people who believe in the power of the individual, the promise of the free market, we are also a people who believe, from the time of our founding, that we aspire to protect one another from harm and exploitation. (Applause.)
Our task has always been to seek the right balance between the dynamism of the marketplace, but also to make sure that it’s serving people. And sometimes that means removing barriers to growth by lifting rules that place unnecessary burdens on business, but other times it means enacting common-sense safeguards like these -- like the Affordable Care Act -- to ensure our American belief that hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by a sense of security and fair play.
That’s at the heart of this reform. That’s why we fought so hard for this reform. That’s why we have to keep on telling people across the country about the potential of this reform and what it means for them and their families. And that’s why we’re not going to fall back.
Speech before the Families USA Health Action Conference in Washington
Yes, he does his rhetorical triangulation thing, but I think this reflects his core beliefs. Line drawing, compromise, between the poles of market and people. At it's best, it is profits and people. Of course, it also runs the risk of re-enforcing profits over people.
From that philosophy, you will get reforms like the health care reform, and you're not likely going to get single payer. It is why pragmatism (what works according to his view of "working") fits him. It's line drawing and accomodation to the present system, and not transformation.
You certainly are not going to get changes in the fundamental political or economic power structure. On the other hand, you will get some reforms over time. Some believe those are the only possible reforms and the only ones that really work. Others disagree.
I think the politically possible plays a role, but I also think he seeks the balance he describes even where he could go farther in the direction of change.
Different people will see this political philosophy differently, and that's okay. Some are just fine; some will say we need much more than this.
I think it's important for folks just to see things as they are and to plan for the future.
And I can be wrong in how I read him. If so, let me know what you think.