One of the fascinating things about Barack Obama is his ability to boil down complex, but important issues to good soundbites. It is a skill he shares with Clinton and that too many damn Democrats can’t figure out–you don’t need a forty point policy paper to defend social security or unemployment or other issues, you need a simple statement that points to values and how the issue affects it. Lynn Sweet picked out one statement that is especially strong in a recent column on social security (my emphasis):
Obama talked about the origins of Social Security as a safety net for retirees who had nothing. It was intended to be the minimum, not the maximum, and never to take the place of regular savings and other investments. It was a way, said Obama, for people to share — and minimize — risk.
“Since Social Security was first signed in to law, almost 70 years ago, by James’ grandfather, at a time when FDR’s opponents were calling it a hoax that would never work and that some likened to communism,” said Obama, “there has been movement, there has been movement after movement, to get rid of the program for purely ideological reasons.
“Because some still believe that we can’t solve the problems we face as one American community, they think this country works better when we’re left to face fate by ourselves.”
The irony, said Obama, of this “all-out assault against every existing form of social insurance is that these safety nets are exactly what encourages each of us to be risk-takers, what encourages entrepreneurship, what allows us to pursue our individual ambitions.’‘
What’s funny about the quote is that the odious and statistically incompetent Charles Murray makes nearly the same point in defending unemployment insurance in his book Losing Ground. Two people could not be much further apart.
Obama comments on it over at his official blog