The key point is that, despite all the histeria of Obama's alleged "socialism," his economics are in fact decidedly market based; instead, Obama and his team aim to tweak incentives so that while people still have freedom to choose, the most favorable decision is what fits the public, as well as individual interest. Here, Obama neither fits the traditional definition of big-government liberal nor the mold Clintonion New Democrat centrist. Foer and Scheiber summarize:
As a theory of government, this approach has much to recommend it. It's resolutely liberal in its ends, ambitious in its means, but also respectful of individual freedom. It is, in other words, a government that is activist but distinctly not socialist.
I stumbled upon this article via the New York Times' new "Idea of the Day" blog, which also includes a number of "must-reads" (the TNR piece was one of these). I'm not sure who has time to read all of them, though!
