The Conflicting American Character
Published in Frankfurter Rundschau
(Germany) on 11 September 2009
by Dietmar Ostermann (link to
original)
Right at the end of his healthcare reform speech to Congress, Obama mentioned a basic conflict that prevents Americans from doing what is taken for granted in other industrialized nations. Quoting from a letter he received from Senator Ted Kennedy written shortly before the senator’s death, Obama said, “What we face…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.”
Americans learn practically from the cradle onward that there is an “American character,” a certain way of thinking and acting that is markedly different from their European cousins. But the makeup of this character is a matter of opinion. Obama mentioned the “robust individualism,” the “passionate defense of liberty,” and “our healthy skepticism of government.”
In practice, however, this systematic individualism among Americans always faces another tradition, one based on commonly shared social values. “A recognition that we’re all in this together, that when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand.” Obama went on to describe this second American characteristic as “a belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play.”
For Kennedy, Obama and other American liberals, that is the indispensable moral compass: Freedom can only blossom when everyone gets a fair chance. That is why there is not only a danger in having too much government involvement, there is also a danger in having too little, Obama warned. Without the balancing hand of intelligent policies, markets may be in danger of failing, monopolies might threaten to stifle competition and powerless people could be exploited.
What might be broad consensus in nations that place great emphasis on social economics never fails to ignite heated debate in the United States. In both societies, it also has a deeper meaning, namely the national character. This conflict also applies to the question of whether every citizen has “a fundamental right” to affordable healthcare, something for which Senator Kennedy fought all his life. Or perhaps whether an unwritten understanding of freedom also applies here, even if that means millions of powerless people are left to face their own destinies, whether healthy or unhealthy.
The good news for Obama is that there are only a handful of people across the country who share the hysterically radical ideas of those who see healthcare reform as “un-American” and condemn it as “socialism.” Most citizens favor a government-sponsored healthcare system that would assure them access to medical services whenever they fall ill. The bad news is that the “healthy skepticism of government” applies here as well. Obama’s greatest mistake was underestimating people’s real concerns, the ideology of his opposition and the politically motivated attacks against the biggest social reform initiative in 50 years. With his speech to both houses of Congress on Wednesday, he has joined the unavoidable battle for America’s national identity.
Americans learn practically from the cradle onward that there is an “American character,” a certain way of thinking and acting that is markedly different from their European cousins. But the makeup of this character is a matter of opinion. Obama mentioned the “robust individualism,” the “passionate defense of liberty,” and “our healthy skepticism of government.”
In practice, however, this systematic individualism among Americans always faces another tradition, one based on commonly shared social values. “A recognition that we’re all in this together, that when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand.” Obama went on to describe this second American characteristic as “a belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play.”
For Kennedy, Obama and other American liberals, that is the indispensable moral compass: Freedom can only blossom when everyone gets a fair chance. That is why there is not only a danger in having too much government involvement, there is also a danger in having too little, Obama warned. Without the balancing hand of intelligent policies, markets may be in danger of failing, monopolies might threaten to stifle competition and powerless people could be exploited.
What might be broad consensus in nations that place great emphasis on social economics never fails to ignite heated debate in the United States. In both societies, it also has a deeper meaning, namely the national character. This conflict also applies to the question of whether every citizen has “a fundamental right” to affordable healthcare, something for which Senator Kennedy fought all his life. Or perhaps whether an unwritten understanding of freedom also applies here, even if that means millions of powerless people are left to face their own destinies, whether healthy or unhealthy.
The good news for Obama is that there are only a handful of people across the country who share the hysterically radical ideas of those who see healthcare reform as “un-American” and condemn it as “socialism.” Most citizens favor a government-sponsored healthcare system that would assure them access to medical services whenever they fall ill. The bad news is that the “healthy skepticism of government” applies here as well. Obama’s greatest mistake was underestimating people’s real concerns, the ideology of his opposition and the politically motivated attacks against the biggest social reform initiative in 50 years. With his speech to both houses of Congress on Wednesday, he has joined the unavoidable battle for America’s national identity.