Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people.” Isa 55:4

President Obama is sitting at an interesting cross roads in his presidency. In my opinion it will determine whether he will be regarded as Lincoln or Roosevelt, or something more in the middle of the pack. 

The crossroads moment is whether or not he is willing to confront the key ideological issue at play in the electorate today.

That issue is the role of government in the lives of its citizens.

The conservative view is that government is the problem. By implication, the solution to every problem then must be less government and more free market.

Roosevelt faced this same choice when he was elected. The stock market had crashed and the Great Depression was in full howl. The wisdom at the time was to reduce government and trust that the markets and the economy would recover on their own. Roosevelt chose to confront the issue head on when he said in his first inaugural speech that, “We refused to leave the problems of our common welfare to be solved by the winds of chance and the hurricanes of disaster”

This summarizes the liberal economic position then and today.

There is a role for government and it is to provide the greatest good to the greatest number of people. It is also an outright rejection of the notion that free markets inherently serve the best interests of the people.

Even after the financial meltdown which demonstrated in the most obvious possible ways the inability of the free market to govern itself, conservatives continue to insist that government is the problem.

Until President Obama takes on this issue directly, he will continue to fight a trench war against this ideology. Fighting that trench war will only demonstrate to those who distrust government, that it is incapable of responding in a timely fashion to any challenge.

What we need is renewed faith in the ability of government to solve the big problems and hold the excesses of the market in check. This trust comes from our leader standing up and saying that the problem is not government. The problem is those who seek to obstruct the common good for their own self-interest.

If he does take this issue on directly, he has the opportunity to become the leader that we all hoped he would be.

10 Responses to “Leader”

  1. keith says:


    So i lose my job and some one, or me has to pay this or i go to jail?

    I work for myself and make $45k and someone has to pay this?


    Abortion and Illegals still, as of 17 hours ago, not fully understood. that’s
    two of your “LIE” comments that are incorrect. again, if they are not incorrect then what are these dem members of the house concerned with?
    Also at the bottom of this one you’ll read a 5.4% tax will be place on imcome over $550k for a single and $1 million for a couple. Coupled with your 6.2 increase you called for a couple of days ago for S.S. for these forks thats 11.6% more taxes for those fork. So on $500k thats $58k less take home. Absurd my good friend.

  2. keith says:


    Im not alone…..He Blew it Jeff, He had every opportunity to get what he wanted. He is the President, He had support, He had republicans realling, He Blew it. Instead he gave it to Nancy & Harry. What was the problem, lack of will, judgement, EXPERIANCE, or just a talking suit?

    Lincoln or Roosevelt???? He better do something quickly to be just to be a CARTER!!!

  3. keith says:

    Harry’s bill covers 31 million uninsured Americans. Obama said there were 30 million uninsured. Harry’s bill also doesn’t cover everyone. Care to do the math for me?

  4. Jeff Beamsley says:

    He is going to get a healthcare bill to sign. So at the end of the day you have to look at results.

    Similarly, when you look internationally, he has also delivered. Israel just agreed to suspend settlements. Iran agreed to inspections of their nuke facilities. That’s because he brokered a deal with Russia to get involved in bringing Iran to the table. There is still work to be done there, but he has accomplished more in 10 months than Bush accomplished with his axis of evil stance in 8 years.

  5. jeff says:

    i’m still back at your “lie” comments…care to clear them up for me? see above.

  6. Jeff Beamsley says:

    I think I addressed this in another post, but Stupek with the active support of the Catholic church have used the house Healthcare Bill as an opportunity to make abortion LESS available than it is today. Obama has said that he wanted this healthcare bill to be neutral with regard to the issue – no more abortions but also no less. That’s what will hopefully occur in the Senate. No lie here.

    Similarly on immigration, Obama said that healthcare would not be extended to illegal immigrants. Those working on the bills are perfecting the language to accomplish that. No lie here either.

  7. keith says:

    Hey Jeff,
    Not off the off yet…..abortion still is in the discussion. NOT A LIE


    As to abortion being LESS availible to women I’d say this; if there is MORE gov’t involvement in health care, temination of a babies life is “healthcare?”, there will be LESS abortion if the tax payer is not going to pay for it. That stands to reason. So if you are argueing that tax payers WILL NOT pay for abortions, then it stands to reason there will be fewer of them. If you don’t want fewer abortions then you are agreeing this bill supports tax payer funded abortions.

    Illegals are still not completely removed either….I don’t have time to find the stuff but I heard both repubs and dems agreeing on last night.

  8. Jeff Beamsley says:

    What these guys are arguing about is exactly what you’ve described. Obama said that he wasn’t going to allow this bill to change the status quo. The Stupak amendment DOES change the status quo. I understand how you would like to take this moment to restrict access to abortions. That’s not going to happen in this bill.

    The concern most recently raised by the Republicans is silly. The bill requires employers of a particular size to offer all of their employees coverage. The Republicans were concerned that illegal aliens could forge their documents, get employment, and get coverage. They wanted some additional provisions to somehow prevent that. Democrats rightly point out that there are already laws on the books which require employers to collect the appropriate documents from employees to prove they are in the country legally and there are laws on the books to punish those who use forged documents. We don’t need another enforcement agency to make sure that the existing enforcement agencies are doing their job.

  9. keith says:

    please read your comment above from 11-25-09.

    what deal did he broker with russia? yesterday the little guy in iran announced to the world they are now a NUCLEAR STATE…

    when will obama sign a healthcare bill?

Leave a Reply