Recently, Sam Tanenhaus, the senior editor at The New York Times Book Review, wrote that Ted Kennedy’s passing brought to an end a vision of liberalism that “holds that the forces of government should be marshaled to improve conditions for the greatest possible number of Americans, with particular emphasis on the excluded and disadvantaged.”

But shouldn’t the vision of marshaling forces to improve conditions for the greatest possible number of Americans be the appropriate goal for any civilized society? We can argue about what precisely should be the proper balance among government, the private sector, and philanthropy. But is there any doubt that this goal is what our political discourse should revolve around?

Looking at the last nine months through this perspective, it’s hard to understand many of the decisions the Obama administration has made. Has improving conditions for the greatest possible number of Americans really been its goal? If not, why not? And if yes, what a funny way to go about it.

Take the bank bailouts. The dust is finally beginning to settle on that front, and what we are seeing doesn’t bode well for the ongoing health-care fight.

Two days after Sen. Kennedy’s death, and thus not given much attention, there was a shocking piece in the Washington Post about how America’s “too-big-to-fail” banks have gotten even bigger since the meltdown. Four banks (Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Citi) now issue 50 percent of America’s mortgages and control two-thirds of the nation’s credit cards. According to FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Blair, this kind of consolidation of power “fed the crisis, and it has gotten worse because of the crisis.”

So what can the bank bailout teach us about health care? Quite a bit. Unfortunately.

With the August recess ending, and Kennedy’s funeral over, we resume a health-care battle in which the administration has been surprised by the declining fortunes of its health-care plan (to the extent that there is, in fact, an administration health-care plan).

I am surprised by the administration’s surprise.

They are too smart not to know that actions have consequences. And one of the main consequences of the one-sided bailout of Wall Street is the way it has undermined public trust in government.

And yet the administration is shocked — shocked — that Americans aren’t rallying behind its vague health-care plan. They can try to blame it on Fox News or town-hall crazies, but I hope they know that much of the health-care anger is a proxy for bailout anger.

There is still a chance to save health care. But only if Obama takes control of the debate. Maybe spending the last few days surrounded by the impassioned spirit of Ted Kennedy will prod the president to push the reset button.

Arianna Huffington is a syndicated columnist. A version of this commentary was originally published by Tribune Media Services.