Uncategorized

A rousing conclusion

In just over a thousand words at the end of his speech last night, the President eloquently summed up both the need for health care reform and the motivations that rest at the core of the progressive movement in this country. Truly outstanding.

Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing.  Our deficit will grow.  More families will go bankrupt.  More businesses will close.  More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it the most.  And more will die as a result.  We know these things to be true. 

That is why we cannot fail.  Because there are too many Americans counting on us to succeed — the ones who suffer silently, and the ones who shared their stories with us at town halls, in e-mails, and in letters.

I received one of those letters a few days ago.  It was from our beloved friend and colleague, Ted Kennedy.  He had written it back in May, shortly after he was told that his illness was terminal.  He asked that it be delivered upon his death. 

In it, he spoke about what a happy time his last months were, thanks to the love and support of family and friends, his wife, Vicki, his amazing children, who are all here tonight.  And he expressed confidence that this would be the year that health care reform — “that great unfinished business of our society,” he called it — would finally pass.  He repeated the truth that health care is decisive for our future prosperity, but he also reminded me that “it concerns more than material things.”  “What we face,” he wrote, “is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.”

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, yes, sometimes angry debate.  That’s our history.   

For some of Ted Kennedy’s critics, his brand of liberalism represented an affront to American liberty.  In their minds, 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 — he 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’s 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, and 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 acknowledgment that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.

This has always been the history of our progress.  In 1935, 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, 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.

That was true then.  It remains true today.  I understand how difficult this health care debate has been.  I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them.  I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road — to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term. 

But that is not what the moment calls for.  That’s not what we came here to do.  We did not come to fear the future.  We came here to shape it.  I still believe we can act even when it’s hard.  I still believe — I still believe that we can act when it’s hard.  I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress.  I still believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet history’s test.

Because that’s who we are.  That is our calling.  That is our character.  Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.” 

3 Comments

  1. IBXer

    September 10, 2009 at 12:07 pm

    “You lie!” was the only part of the whole speech I believed.

  2. Steve Turner

    September 10, 2009 at 2:40 pm

    Alas, Rob, President Obama has more faith in the character of our country than I do.

    I’ll bet Teabaggers like IBXer and Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) cheered like crazy when their Prez announced 2 trillion in tax cuts for the rich in 2001 and a phony immoral war in 2003 (which may end up costing 3 trillion before it’s all over). Neither one paid for, by the way.

    Tax cuts for the rich and immoral war…that’s Teabagger character for you.

    It looks like 51 votes via the reconciliation process in the Senate is the only way health reform is passed.

  3. IBXer

    September 11, 2009 at 10:25 am

    Obama was lying and has been for a very long time.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/10/taking_liberties/entry5301652.shtml

    “The Congressional Research Service, the legislative branch’s research arm, took a close look at H.R. 3200 in a report dated August 25. It concludes that the bill’s individual mandate to have health insurance (with tax penalties for non-compliance) would apply to legal residents and illegal aliens alike.

    When the legislation’s “Health Insurance Exchange” offering private and government-run plans would begin operation in 2013, CRS concluded would be no restrictions on illegal aliens buying government-offered insurance: “H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens participating in the Exchange — whether the noncitizens are legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently.””

    “This brings us back to Obama’s speech last night. It’s true that the Democrats haven’t explicitly called for illegal immigrants to be covered by H.R. 3200, but by voting down two amendments that would have verified participants’ legal status, they seem to have implicitly allowed it. It’s no crime in Washington to say one thing and do another, especially when you’re under pressure from influential special interest groups, but it should still be a bit embarrassing for politicians discovered to be doing it. “