More of this, please.

[babylonsister]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_04/023186.php

IN DEFENSE OF GOVERNMENT.... President Obama hosted a town-hall event in North Carolina yesterday at a Charlotte factory where they manufacture advanced battery technology. The event was primarily devoted to talking about the economy, and it was well timed -- the president spoke shortly after the encouraging monthly job numbers were released.

Towards the end of the Q&A, an attendee asked Obama about health care reform and taxes, and the president proceeded to deliver an answer that lasted ... just over 17 minutes. This led to some mockery from the media -- for the record, I kind of liked the lengthy response, but I probably like in-depth discussions more than the typical political reporter -- and Obama, at the end of his soliloquy, conceded, "Boy, that was a long answer. I'm sorry."

What I found more interesting, though, was the president's remarks in defense of government itself. He was talking about the need for an improved national electrical grid ("smart grid") and the role government can and must play in tending to infrastructure needs. Obama told his audience that work on the grid "is an investment that only government, working with the private sector, can help to make."

"You're hearing a lot of talk these days about government, and government is 'terrible,' and 'bureaucrats,' and 'they're taking over' and all this stuff. Look, I don't want government any more than is necessary, but there are some things that Bob or any CEO can't invest in. Bob is not going to build the roads to get to Celgard. No company is going to make investments for a public good. None of you would expect a private company to fund our military or our firefighters. There are just some things that you can't do on your own, and the private sector is not going to do -- it's not profitable because if Bob was the guy who had to build the road, he'd have a whole bunch of other people driving on that road that weren't paying for it. So it's not a good investment for him.

"That's where government comes in. The same is true when it comes to something like the electricity grid. We're going to have to help create that infrastructure, just like broadband lines, just like a whole bunch of basic 21st century infrastructure, so we've got the platform in order to succeed and compete economically. That's what the Chinese are doing. That's what the Indians are doing. That's what the Germans are doing. That's what the United States is going to have to do."

I'm always glad when the president does this. One of Obama's larger, thematic tasks is changing the way people perceive the role of collective action through their government. The right's response to his presidency is a hysterical attack on the very notion of government action, which makes it all the more important for the president to make statements like these.

Americans need a reminder that when it comes to some key policy challenges, the only sensible solution is for the country to use the government as a tool to act in the public's interest, taking steps businesses won't take, and that individuals can't take on their own.

In other words, more of this, please.

—Steve Benen

[livetohike]

1. I like in depth discussions, too

How can one make an argument in 5 seconds? We had enough of that with Bush/Cheney. We finally have an intelligent leader again and I feel that people appreciate an explanation. The hell with the air head types.

[cilla4progress]

2. And what a great explanation from the Professor!

I love how he explained the costs/benefits of private/public investment...his "building the roads" analogy. Simple, and right on. Should be understandable, even by the morans!

[patrice]

3. Re "remarks in defense of gov't itself": It's a little mentioned aspect of "rope a dope" tactics tha

t, not only does it cause the Opposition, "the Right" in this case, to reveal its whole hand and paint its absurd self into a corner, it also forces the opposition to the Opposition, "the Left" in this case, to Stand Up and Fight for itself, because it MUST to deal with what the Right is trying to do, or the Right will win. It's the tension between ALL of the revealed issues that drive the respective partisans to adapt, some MORE functionally, others LESS functionally, and that's a good thing to know.

When people on this board were saying nasty stuff about Obama's voting pattern in the Illinois legislature, back when, I said then that those Present votes were the hallmark of a confident negotiator.

[frazzled]

4. Changing the understanding of the role of government ...

is what Obama meant when he said he wanted to be a "transformational" president like Reagan. Reagan, of course, was transformational in that he managed to convince the general populace that government was "bad." And that perception has stuck with us as the bane of politics and government action in the decades since.

This, more than any other thing, is why the Republicans want to attack him and turn the public against him. If he succeeds in changing people's views on the role of government, they are out of business, and Reaganism is dead. This explains the over-the-top attempts to delegitimatize him--whether by birther claims, obstructing his ability to govern via nomination holds, opposing any legislation he supports (whether they agree with it or not), subtly (and not so subtly) stoking wild charges of socialism or Armageddon.

Obama came into office thinking he could be the one to change people's minds about government. And he probably could if the sandstorm of hysteria were not surrounding him. This is what they fear, and this is why normally non-insane politicians have adopted insane positions with regard to this president. If he were to succeed in this one ideological shift, Republicanism and conservatism would be relegated to the wilderness for a generation.

Their main goal is to make people not listen to or trust him.

[prairierose]

6. f I could rec your very cogent explanation, I would...

but I have to settle for this reply. Thanks for that, it is very clear and easy to understand.

[Kdillard]

5. Yes indeed. Good explanation.

[butterfly77]

7. Kicked&Recommended!

[glowing]

8. Yes, but even the teabaggers want the govt to directly start hiring like FDR did with the WPA.

Their senators and the like are always telling these people, if you want good bennies and health care, get a govt job.