Neoliberalism as Common Sense in Barack Obama’s Health Care Rhetoric

Abstract

This essay explores the rhetorical qualities of neoliberalism through an analysis of economic and rhetorical theories of conventional wisdom and common sense. I analyze Barack Obama’s health care advocacy to demonstrate how neoliberal language animated his arguments for reform and frustrated his appeals to community. I argue that neoliberalism maintains its influence on political culture in large part because of its deep embeddedness in political language. The essay concludes with a discussion of how rhetors might operate within a culture marked by this prominent and often problematic discourse.

• Affordable Care Act
• conventional wisdom
• neoliberalism
• Obama
• sensus communis

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Robert L. Ivie for his comments on early versions of this essay, Susan C. Jarratt for her guidance throughout the revision process, and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful and thoughtful feedback.

Notes

¹ There have been a number of news articles explaining the impact of the Great Recession as compared to the Great Depression. See, for example, Isidore; Norris; or Willis.

² An aggregate of polls from January 2016 from the website RealClear Politics, for instance, shows an average of 43.4% of Americans approving of the law and 51.7% opposing.

³ Throughout my analysis I indicate from which speech each set of quotes is drawn. When I cannot indicate in text, I provide a citation.

⁴ This speech can be viewed on YouTube as of January 11, 2017. The video is titled “Obama on Single Payer Health Insurance.”

⁵ The argument of “socialized medicine” had been a feature of every health care debate aimed at universal coverage. It originated during Franklin Roosevelt’s responses to the Great Depression, re-emerged during Truman’s push for national health care, and then again during debates about what would become Medicare. More recently, the term was present during President Clinton’s push for health care reform during his first term in office. For a detailed explanation, see St. Onge 348–66.