Social Security still the Third Rail?
Josh Marshall, lamenting the Dems inability (or unwillingness) to capitalize strategically (in 06') on the Social Security reforms pushed by President Bush brings up an interesting point. Prima facie, it does seem like a pretty good item for truly articulate Dems who are good on the issue, (Rep. Sprat, Sen. Clinton, etc.) to use to swing wood in their elections. But a few observations:
The SSR debate has changed a bit; irrevocably, I would say. You who would bring up SSR now, and not have something substantive to say in counter to the various Bush and House proposals, will do so at your political peril.
Don't believe me? Consider: Katrina is the death knell of SSR under Bush, I regrettably admit. I didn't love the plan, preferring Rep. Kolbe's, but liked the fact that SSR was being discussed.
But think for a moment if Katrina had gone differently - Bush envokes Insurrection Act on Tuesday and lands with Marine One and the 82nd Airbourne at the Superdome and convention center and starts handing out water and food and refuses to leave the region until all evacuees are safe. Sen. Kennedy says some typical kneejerk red faced thing and is immediately invited by Bush to New Orleans to help - a Pavehawk is sent to his house.Brown is quietly removed and Bush assumes control of FEMA, Kennedy is assigned a section of the city and does a damn good job, then Lott comes, then Landrieu, Bush nominates Roberts from the back of a local's pick-up truck, signs the $10.5 billion legislation on the hood of a humvee, sleeps at a local Marine barracks, criss-crosses the region for days in a helicopter, Old town holdouts start calling him "George" when he comes by, etc. etc., - all on television.....
Or much simpler: had Osama bin Laden been paraded across the front pages in his underwear, or even: had the Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites suddenly stumbled into a brilliant and inspiring constitutional compromise - any of these, or any combination of these would dramatically alter the SSR debate right now. To be sure, smart libs like Josh Marshall, and truly, truly dumb ones like Dowd, all would have still found something to hate about Bush, but his entire political capital would have been altered, and the political reality of SSR very different.
The point being that events are wrecking Bush, but the Democrats are not. Bush and Hill Repubs' troubles regarding SSR and a hundred other issues are by and large, circumstances and events, some of their own making (Iraq, Katrina relief missteps) and some not (Katrina itself). But they are certainly not being hobbled or having the agenda changed by the actions or even the inactions of the elected Democrats of this country.
The Democrats, liberals who claim debate and intellectual discourse as by definition virtuous, refused as policy to offer any meaningful alternatives to Republican SSR. Why does this matter? This refusal, placed in the context of a President Bush surging from a success or series of successes, would have been politically, electorally, and functionally catastrophic to the Democrats.
Despite very neutral and disenchanted public opinion on the issue (which George Bush seemed to merely interpret as a healthy challenge) the only real reasons Bush has had to abandon SSR were events, or events handled poorly. Had Bush retained or built political capital, there is little doubt - even from the most reluctant Republican allies of SSR - that before Katrina, Bush would have returned to stump for it again. By Summer of '06, Democrats would have looked peevish and foolish indeed for a continued refusal to even offer ideas on helping preserve the largest and most successful Democratic initiative in the Party history.
Josh is still correct that the Dems must find a way to use the SSR failure to their advantage, but bringing up something that someone else couldn't fix always begs the question - what would you do? With Democrats this inevitably forces them into trying to make a tax increase sound heroic. Better to just avoid the specifics. "Yay! Bush lost!" "We saved Social Security!"
No, actually you didn't. There was a hurricane.
The SSR debate has changed a bit; irrevocably, I would say. You who would bring up SSR now, and not have something substantive to say in counter to the various Bush and House proposals, will do so at your political peril.
Don't believe me? Consider: Katrina is the death knell of SSR under Bush, I regrettably admit. I didn't love the plan, preferring Rep. Kolbe's, but liked the fact that SSR was being discussed.
But think for a moment if Katrina had gone differently - Bush envokes Insurrection Act on Tuesday and lands with Marine One and the 82nd Airbourne at the Superdome and convention center and starts handing out water and food and refuses to leave the region until all evacuees are safe. Sen. Kennedy says some typical kneejerk red faced thing and is immediately invited by Bush to New Orleans to help - a Pavehawk is sent to his house.Brown is quietly removed and Bush assumes control of FEMA, Kennedy is assigned a section of the city and does a damn good job, then Lott comes, then Landrieu, Bush nominates Roberts from the back of a local's pick-up truck, signs the $10.5 billion legislation on the hood of a humvee, sleeps at a local Marine barracks, criss-crosses the region for days in a helicopter, Old town holdouts start calling him "George" when he comes by, etc. etc., - all on television.....
Or much simpler: had Osama bin Laden been paraded across the front pages in his underwear, or even: had the Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites suddenly stumbled into a brilliant and inspiring constitutional compromise - any of these, or any combination of these would dramatically alter the SSR debate right now. To be sure, smart libs like Josh Marshall, and truly, truly dumb ones like Dowd, all would have still found something to hate about Bush, but his entire political capital would have been altered, and the political reality of SSR very different.
The point being that events are wrecking Bush, but the Democrats are not. Bush and Hill Repubs' troubles regarding SSR and a hundred other issues are by and large, circumstances and events, some of their own making (Iraq, Katrina relief missteps) and some not (Katrina itself). But they are certainly not being hobbled or having the agenda changed by the actions or even the inactions of the elected Democrats of this country.
The Democrats, liberals who claim debate and intellectual discourse as by definition virtuous, refused as policy to offer any meaningful alternatives to Republican SSR. Why does this matter? This refusal, placed in the context of a President Bush surging from a success or series of successes, would have been politically, electorally, and functionally catastrophic to the Democrats.
Despite very neutral and disenchanted public opinion on the issue (which George Bush seemed to merely interpret as a healthy challenge) the only real reasons Bush has had to abandon SSR were events, or events handled poorly. Had Bush retained or built political capital, there is little doubt - even from the most reluctant Republican allies of SSR - that before Katrina, Bush would have returned to stump for it again. By Summer of '06, Democrats would have looked peevish and foolish indeed for a continued refusal to even offer ideas on helping preserve the largest and most successful Democratic initiative in the Party history.
Josh is still correct that the Dems must find a way to use the SSR failure to their advantage, but bringing up something that someone else couldn't fix always begs the question - what would you do? With Democrats this inevitably forces them into trying to make a tax increase sound heroic. Better to just avoid the specifics. "Yay! Bush lost!" "We saved Social Security!"
No, actually you didn't. There was a hurricane.
posted by JCH | 8:58 AM
<< Home