David Broder seriously misses the mark in his column on Obama as gambler. It's the financial gamblers who have messed things up so bad.

By Ed Knudson

David Broder chose the wrong metaphor when he writes in his column of February 26 about the ambitious proposals of Barack Obama. He concludes: "When we elected Obama, we didn't know what a gambler we were getting." Does the man not know that financial speculators unleashed by Republican deregulatory policies are the ones who have brought the economy to its knees and failed to invest in that which the country has needed for a long time.

It was financial gamblers with people's homes that caused this crisis. It was Republican failure to govern on behalf of the American people that allowed these gamblers to destroy the economic system. The use of the gambling metaphor for Obama applies not to him but to these financial gamblers. To believe that wealthy investors should have complete power to determine the future life of all Americans without protection from government is part of the failed philosophy of market fundamentalists, who are the real gamblers and who have not been investing in America.

Investing in transformation of the nation's system of energy usage is way overdue. The Wall Street gamblers didn't do it. Now it must happen. It's not a gamble to do something about it. It's common sense.

Investing in education after years of Republican efforts to destroy the public schools and to make big bucks off charging high interest on student loans is not a gamble, it is the very sort of investment that the people of the country need. Wall Street hasn't done it, private schools have not succeeded, even the originators of the school choice movement now agree that they were wrong. Republicans have gotten by for too long preaching about family values at the same time they have failed to provide what's needed for children in public schools.

Investing in health care reform is not a gamble, the current system is going to bankrupt the country entirely unless it is changed. Broder must have his eyes closed to the current reality. Reform should have happened fifty years ago. It would be irresponsible for Obama not to follow through on a campaign promise at the top of his agenda during the campaign. Should an economic crisis be the reason not to do something? Not at all, health care is part of the crisis in the first place. The privatization of health care, encouraging profit-motivated corporations to run health care, a need that cannot be met efficiently with market methods, has been a dismal failure in many important ways. It has increased costs, it has failed to provide all Americans with coverage, it has resulted in one-third of what is paid for health care going to administrative costs and business profits. The so-called free market is not so free when it comes to health care. It's not a gamble to change it, it is a necessity.

I think Obama's strategy on funding health care reform first, creating a "reserve fund," before debating the messy details of a specific reform proposal, is absolutely brilliant. It says "we have to do this, we have to find a way to come to agreement." This is moral and political leadership of the kind we have not been seeing in the nasty politics of the last years, a nasty politics that hides the real motives of the gamblers to put the health of Americans up for sale to the highest bidder.

Broder likes to fancy himself as non-partisan, he sees both sides of the fence. But this means he fails to see how radical to the right Republicans have become, how much Republican leaders are committed not to civil debate but to cultural war, and in so doing these leaders have betrayed the interests of ordinary folks who have traditionally voted Republican, folks that need health care and homes and a chance to flourish in their lives. These leaders totally failed at governing the country, that's why they were voted out in the last election.

Americans have had enough of a failed philosophy. When Republican leaders learn to talk in a civil manner, when they have some ideas worth listening to, then Broder can criticize Obama. In the meantime, he should realize that without a strong and smart government the country is at the mercy of huge corporate institutions who in their basic philosophy believe their only duty is to make money for themselves, no matter what happens for people who have to eat and travel and house themselves. When society is at the mercy of financial speculators and bankers and investors whose only interest is more money rather than the good of the country, then we can expect to happen what we have seen happen, a complete breakdown of the system causing fear and uncertainty and what may be growing civil unrest. The rich have been taking out of the system much more than they deserve for a very long time now, leaving too little for those trying to make ends meet by working two jobs trying to pay a mortgage, causing indebtedness for everyone. Everything is now maxed out by their gambling.

So it's not Obama that is the gamble. His proposals are solutions within the context of the rule of law, a quite conservative principle, his leadership can return the country to some sanity about what's important and helpful for everyone in the country. The idea of Republicans, that everyone will benefit if wealthy corporations are allowed to do whatever they want, which is just to get wealthier, is simply a lie. They have been gambling with the country too long and it is time for, as Obama has said, "a new era of responsibiity and cooperation."