No it isn't. Obama isn't the hospital director doing a press release about some new service, he's the US President directly addressing the citizens who elected him to solve pressing social problems.
That's a complete non-sequitur. "Consumer" denotes an economic role, and if the president is discussing a solution to a socio-economic problem that benefits people in that role, "consumer" is the correct term to use.
If I had time I'd dig up some links on this issue, but I don't. I can only repeat what I posted elsewhere on this thread - read up on the historical development of the use of language and linguistics to shape culture and society, both from the advertising industry and from the feminist movement.
The contemporary labeling of citizens as consumers is no accident, and not just an artifact of the mainstreaming of the economics field.
You haven't demonstrated that the "contemporary labeling of citizens as consumers" even exists, yet. The only example in this entire thread uses the word "consumer" in the correct economic sense.
But while you mention it, I actually am irritated at the feminist movement for trying to redefine and taboo commonplace words. I consider this campaign against "consumer" to be a similarly misguided mistake.
I'm just surprised people are arguing this point, I see it everywhere. Maybe now it's been brought to your attention you'll catch more instances of government officials using 'consumer' when 'citizen' would be more appropriate.
As for the feminist movement, IANAE but if I understand correctly thats where idea of changing the words used for certain things was really made into a science and a practice, at least for social change.
I'm not sure if the ad industry started doing it before or after that for commercial purposes, but there's a really good documentary on Google Video and Youtube called 'The Century of Self' that covers the ad industry side of it. Fascinating, when you have an hour or so.
That stuff combined with a study of the of tools of psychological and social influence originating in Europe in 1800s and 1900s (from Hegel to Dialectical Materialism) makes it difficult to believe that anything about our modern world is a coincidence.
"I'm just surprised people are arguing this point, I see it everywhere. Maybe now it's been brought to your attention you'll catch more instances of government officials using 'consumer' when 'citizen' would be more appropriate."
That's not an argument. You show me the instances. (Having heard this argument several times in the past few months, I still haven't seen any myself.) You're punting.
"That stuff combined with a study of the of tools of psychological and social influence originating in Europe in 1800s and 1900s (from Hegel to Dialectical Materialism) makes it difficult to believe that anything about our modern world is a coincidence."
Oh Christ, don't trot that Hegel bullshit out to me again; I had enough of that during my philosophy degree.