Mr. President, Call It Something!

President Obama can't escape comparisons to FDR. On his 100th day in office, politicos everywhere measured him against the FDR yardstick. Last week, Paul Krugman commented that "I was kind of hoping Obama might be FDR, but maybe not."

Whether or not Krugman is right, the president should learn the most fundamental FDR lesson of all: call it something.

We remember FDR so favorably because of the New Deal, which effectively rewrote the American social contract: it gave the gift of Social Security. Many of the great 20th century presidents likewise grouped their legislative initiatives into a larger effort whose name reflected their purpose and ideals. JFK had his "New Frontier" and LBJ his "Great Society," which created Medicare and Medicaid.

No surprise that in his health care speech to Congress, President Obama aligned health care reform with these legacies:

"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."

If we've really survived the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression thanks to government intervention, and if health care reform is so integral to fulfilling the American promise, where is President Obama's "New Deal"? We've had the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the reauthorization of SCHIP, the Public-Private Investment Program, the government takeover of too-big-to-fail companies (Bear Stearns and AIG to GM and hundreds of banks), and now the messy attempt at health care reform. Without a doubt, all this legislation is significant enough to merit comparison to the New Deal and the Great Society.

But to many voters, this series of legislation must seem uncoordinated, discombobulated, a patchwork attempt to stitch the economy back together. And the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" simply isn't sexy.

Perhaps the president considered doing this and decided against it. Fair enough: it might offer his critics something to coalesce around, when everything else they've tried seems to have failed.

But I think the benefits would outweigh this risk. It's important to demonstrate that these pieces of legislation -- including health care reform -- are all part of a coordinated effort to revive the American economy, and to bring it into the 21st century. It's important to convey that these laws are meant to transcend this moment and this crisis, to lay a new foundation for economic security and affordable health care that can endure for decades.

I propose the "New Era of Responsibility," taken from President Obama's Inaugural Address. Or the "Great Promise," for the double meaning of promise--a renewed hope, and a new commitment to decent health care for all. Whatever the phrase, it must invoke a national spirit of community and the optimism that our best days are still ahead, that we can still continue on the path toward a more perfect union, provided we keep our eyes fixed on the horizon.

Follow Andrew Ruben on Twitter: www.twitter.com/andrewruben

Comments

[stagebandman]

I have suggested the health care bill be called the American Lives Act. How could anyone vote against American lives?

[mergina]

I believe it was all made up, just like the next one will be. These greedy B&&*%%%S would never let it fall apart to the point of losing all they have ripped off.

[AmericanSon]

He can't call "It" anything; because there is no "It" there. There is no clear, cohesive, understandable set of programs to attain his poorly communicated goals. He says he wants health care reform; but he won't commit to a public option, let alone a single payer program. His economic policies waffle between sucking up to the corporations, and some nebulous wish to solve the economic problems. He continues to be beholden to Wall Street. He needs to fire most of his advisors and cabinet, and start over to clarify whatever it is that he hopes to accomplish.

[Awake-and-Sing]

President Obama is NO FDR, that's for sure.

He's just another corporate shiill.

"New politics" just turned about to be a scam where he could hide behind "bipartisanship" so as not to keep his promises.

There is no ideology, no governing principle there. Where the windy rhetoric has blown away from his well-delivered speeches you find there is no there, there.

Trickle down economics is still being tried and still failing. Nothing trickles down. The banks are happy. Wall Street is happy. Nothing is being stimulated at the bottom.

This is not a matter of "impatience", but the lack of "intention".

Blame Geitner, Summers and Emanuel if you want, but that's who the President chose. He could have easily chosen people who would make stimulating "demand" instead of "supply" and "labor" instead of "capital", the base of the economy instead of top, the priority.

We needed an FDR and we got a Jimmy Carter instead.

[larry278]

Very true. JEC could lose the designation of the best Republican president we Americans elected in the mistaken belief that JEC was a Democrat. BHO is a shoo in to replace ex-Pres Carter as the best Republican POTUS who ran as a Democrat.

[peterg76]

You're assuming that Obama is sincere about change. At some point, you have to wonder.

[stagebandman]

No, I think it is obvious that he wants change, and he wants to do it right. He's not a knee-jerk, fly-off-the-handle guy, like EVERYONE in the last administration.

[peterg76]

He's 20% of the way through his job contract. There's careful preparation and then there's bluffing.

[Awake-and-Sing]

There is no "wonder" here.

Look past a politician's meaningless words and speeches, no matter how well delivered, to their actions. Their actual actions tell you who they are and what they really believe.

Instead appointing genuine fighting progressives like Stiglitz and Dean, he put his trust in corporatists like Emanuel, Geitner, Summers and originally Daschle.

That was the first real clue that no real change was ever planned.

[chocolatecity]

I thought he was calling his programs the "New Foundation"

[PlaceboStudman]

The new title for Health Care Reform= Get RIch *AND* die trying

(cause this has nothing to do with health care and everything to do with the economy)