Obama’s Appeal: A Test of National Character

“Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan,” President Obama said at the beginning of his powerful health-care speech to Congress on Sept. 9. It was a sentence that many Americans had been waiting for–quite the opposite of much that has preceded it in this raucous debate–and he proceeded to lay out the elements of health-care reform that he considers essential. He did this clearly, concisely, using language that was mostly jargon-free–a triumph of speechwriting on this mind-numbing issue. It was also a fighting speech. Obama called the talk of death panels, started by the disgraceful Sarah Palin, “a lie, plain and simple,” which drew explosive applause from the Democratic side of the aisle. He promised to “call out” those who told lies about the plan, a powerful threat when it comes from the President. Finally, it was a moving speech that addressed an aspect of health-care reform that is often forgotten–the moral responsibility that we have toward our fellow citizens–by reminding the Congress of who Ted Kennedy was and why this was so important to him. The President made health-care reform a national-character issue, which is precisely what it is.

I suspect the speech did its job. Congress will pass some form of health-care reform this year, probably something very close to what the President proposed. But it will not end the public malignancy that has attended this debate and threatens the democratic fabric of our nation.

A week before the Obama speech, I attended a town-hall meeting in Russellville, Ark., sponsored by Senator Blanche Lincoln, a moderate Democrat facing a tough re-election campaign–exactly the sort of Senator the President will need to get health-care reform passed. It was a vivid demonstration of the problems that Obama is facing, and not just on health care. About 900 overwhelmingly white and skeptical people showed up. The first question was about the so-called public option, and Lincoln’s answer was gobbledygook: “I don’t think we can afford a fully government-funded new entitlement program.” Of course, no one has proposed that: the public option would offer a voluntary, government-run plan like Medicare to compete with private insurers. It would affect only those who buy insurance individually, a thin sliver of the general population. But it soon became clear that “public option” had become a synonym for “socialized medicine, like in Britain” in the minds of most of her audience, and that was why Lincoln offered the gobbledygook–it was an attempt to speak the same language as her electorate. The third questioner asked, “If the public option is passed, will Congress be covered under the same plan as average Americans?” At which point Lincoln accurately described what the public option was, thereby contradicting her earlier formulation. It was all very confusing.

It soon became clear that most of Lincoln’s audience didn’t believe a word she said. She was asked if the bill would cover illegal immigrants and pay for abortions. She said no, it wouldn’t. There was a chorus of boos. A man dressed in black yelled “Communist!” and continued to do so throughout the rest of the meeting, like a demented parrot. Indeed, as the meeting continued and the tone disintegrated, it became apparent that a majority of the audience thought the President of the United States was some sort of subversive, surrounding himself with czars and self-declared communists (like Van Jones, the now departed environmental aide who once, in a foolish fit of pique, did declare himself a red).

Two days later, I’m told, Lincoln faced an even larger audience in Jonesboro, Ark., and it was more of the same. A recent poll indicated that a plurality of Arkansans think Barack Obama is not a U.S. citizen and a clear majority, 55%, would prefer Rush Limbaugh’s vision as President. This is an outlier, of course. Most Americans are more reasonable. A majority favors a public option, a strong majority favors health-care reform, and it’s easy to envision both Obama and Lincoln turning this craziness to their advantage in 2010: “Because of us, the insurance companies can’t take your coverage away when you get sick,” they could say–if reform does pass–“and the Republicans fought against your best interests every step of the way.” The Republicans could well find that their recalcitrance and ugly misinformation are a millstone in the next election.

But it is also possible that the Limbaugh- and Glenn Beck–inspired poison will spread from right-wing nutters to moderates and independents who are a necessary component of Obama’s governing coalition. According to the polls, Obama has lost 20 points among independents in recent months. It would be a good thing if the President’s speech turns the tide, and the remainder of this historic debate is conducted on higher ground, but I’m not sure that it will. As the man said, it is a test of our national character … in more ways than one.