Finally, a defense of liberalism

First the president's deficit-reduction commission came out with a report that was so boldly Draconian that it got defined as a far-right plan. Barack Obama said we needed to go slowly.

Then U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the Republican House Budget Committee chairman with Ayn Rand on his sleeve, made that commission's work seem positively centrist. He proposed essentially ending Medicare while simultaneously cutting taxes -- yes, still more -- for the richest people.

So there it was, your American political landscape.

On the right you had an undoing of government health care for old people so the wealthiest people could keep more of their money. Suddenly shoved into the center was a commission plan raising the age eligibility for Social Security and, among many other proposals, wanting to get the government out of National Public Radio.

There was no engagement in this debate on the vast and fading American political left until President Obama went to George Washington University on Wednesday and filled the void with what will have to pass anymore for a liberal view.

What Obama spoke was liberal enough for modern realities and pretty much pitch perfect.

It is not true that he demonized the Republicans for their assault on Medicare. He merely told the truth on those guilty of self-demonization, proposing as they do to deliver America's seniors to stockholders in private health insurance corporations and to transfer government's ever-rising costs of health care to the seniors themselves.

Obama explained America's benevolent and proud history in using its wealth to provide for its neediest. To abandon such a glorious principle now because of dire fiscal reality while at the same time letting tax cuts continue for the top 2 percent of earners -- well, let's put it this way: An America who says we're going to have to cut back our compassion for those in need while at the same time lathering largess on others not at all in need is hardly the America this president said he envisioned.

And it shouldn't be the America the rest of us settle for.

We can cut Medicare costs by cutting health care costs, not by charging seniors, Obama said.

And, yes, Obama declared that the richest people can pay a little more in taxes, not for punishment, but because they have been the most-blessed in our economy and therefore have more personal resources to spare.

He proposed hitting the wealthiest twice.

First, he would let their Bush tax cuts expire -- this after he caved to the Republicans on this very point in December. He appears to be trying to atone, declaring, "We cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. And I refuse to renew them again."

"Refuse" is not one of those usual wiggle words.

Then Obama would cap our top earners' itemized tax deductions so that they cannot continue removing ever-increasing slabs of income from taxation through itemization while poor folks remove only shards through the standard deduction.

Republicans accuse Obama of "class warfare." But they declared that war already. Obama is merely engaging on the side under siege.

This country once taxed its tip-top incomes with a 91 percent marginal rate, using the proceeds to fund two races it would gloriously win -- on nuclear arms and to the moon.

So, it is hardly warfare on today's billionaires to charge them 35 percent on only the top fraction of their wealth, this to keep grandma's doctor bills paid while we figure a way to bring health care costs down for her, for everyone else and for the government.

This was the best thing about Obama's speech: It aspired to be more than an incremental version of modern Republicanism. It aspired to be altogether different from modern Republicanism.

That's a debate. That's healthy. That's the very best America.

John Brummett is an award-winning columnist for the Arkansas News Bureau in Little Rock. His email address is jbrummett@arkansasnews.com.