The Teacher-in-Chief Takes To the Bully Pulpit As School Is Back In Session

If one had any doubt that school's back in session, one had only to listen to Prof. Obama Wednesday night.

Addressing us on health care, he reminded at least one longtime Obama watcher back in Chicago of the intellectual and philosophical reality beneath the caricature of either fire-breathing liberal or compromiser too willing to appease political enemies.

 At heart he's a traditional liberal who's deeply pragmatic in search of progressive values. Whatever works. It's the same with a key consigliere sitting a few feet away and apparently fully enjoying a stick of gum, David Axelrod. Perhaps Obama is more inclined toward the empirical. But, for both, it's a willingness to put reflexive ideology aside and ask, "What's the best way to do this?"

Without knowing how many Americans were really watching, and what the impact might be, consider some of Obama's declarations. The assertion that there were truths in the positions of both left-leaning supporters of a single-payer system and right-leaning supporters of not forcing employers to offer insurance. The refutation of the crazy hyperbole of recent months concerning "death panels," coverage for illegal immigrants, and funding of abortions. The gibberish of a government takeover of the system, an underlying premise of a surprisingly anemic Republican response given by a Louisiana congressman, Charles Boustany, a surgeon who operated this night with a sledgehammer.

And, imagine, on the great GOP specter of system-sapping medical malpractice lawsuits, a Democratic president actually conceded that some doctors might be needlessly practicing "defensive medicine" as a result of their fears of meanie attorneys. To that end, he was directing the Department of Health and Human Services to dust off a test program initially proffered by a veritable Satan to his own loyalists, former President George W. Bush.

For sure, old-fashioned ideology was not absent, especially when it came to Big Business and the use of the anecdotal to portray them as insensitive creeps. There was an arguable  anti-business current, even with a pro forma declaration that health industry bigshots weren't inherently bad souls, and one wishes there was a bit more explanation of the incentives to keep their ilk in the game.

Some of the initial television post mortems inescapably focused on the instant political ramifications in Congress. Would votes change? There was little seeming dissection of the merits of his case, which seems a strong one, even amid the pundits' cynical harrumphing over the Republican guffawing upon hearing Obama's admission that many details were left to be ironed out in what he was proposing.

Ultimately, the empiricist seemed to be relying greatly on a key analytical conclusion, namely that there was sufficient waste and inefficiency in the system to pay for his plan. Hmmmm. Live by the empirical, die by the empirical. If this passes in the rough form he outlined, we shall see if he's correct.

But as far as his final assessment that the status quo will only bring a burgeoning deficit, more bankrupt families and more businesses closing, he's probably on the mark. But, politically, it was an unwitting reminder that he's squarely matched against the most important force in the nation's capital: the status quo.

Check the coffers of dozens of lobbying and communications firms, recipients of head-turning riches in what's an unlikely golden moment for the insider class during a dismal recession for the rest of us. Check the pages of Roll Call, The Hill, Congressional Quarterly, Politico and a raft of other publications. Check the unceasing ads bought by interests which, by and large, hope precious little will actually happen.

Can empiricism topple filthy lucre? We shall see.

Photo Credit: Jason Reed/Pool Getty Image