According to several news sources today, the President’s SS reform plan is not receiving the kind of response I’m sure the Administration had hoped the centerpiece of its domestic policy would receive. The Washingto Post, New Yort Times, Chicago Tribune, L.A. Times, and Boston Globe all have pieces today pointing out that the plan has received only lukewarm support and that rank and file Republicans are hoping that there’s a Plan B in the works. And yet,…
The President is scheduled to begin another series of “town hall” events to sell the idea. These events are almost entirely controlled by the White House in that tickets tend to be distributed through local Republican committees, they are generally held in districts where the Republicans did well in the last election, and any resemblence to an actual “town hall meeting” where you might expect some active debate on the subject is purely coincidental.
Is the President being well served by these types of events? I’m having a little trouble getting my mind around what’s to be gained by continuing the charade? Everyone knows they’re staged…the tenor of the reporting on them doesn’t usually run to “The President was able to speak directly to a group of average people today…” it is usually reported (correctly) that “The President again spoke to a group of hand-picked idolators…” and so everyone knows that the Adminstration knows that the gig is up. Is the mind-set, “If we keep getting clips of people agreeing with the President the tide will turn?”
For those of you that support the current Administration…enlighten me as to why this technique continues to be seen as a good idea?
Of course he’s being well served. It’s superb political theater, and the credulous lap it up. People produce info-mercials because they sell product. These political info-mercials are no different, in conception, execution, or effect. Bush has seen, quite rightly, that if he dispenses with any semblance of a political dialectic, and simply quells the artificial fears he instills with his specious scaremongering by delivering well-prepared political comfort food on a tray with expert presentation, it’s devoured with gusto, and he is rewarded with persuasive praise. Don’t want to debate the Congress? Eschew the top-down approach entirely and recreate the debate from the bottom up by using the bully pulpit to spread a sea of bullshit. Facts and figures (besides your own concoctions) become pedantic extravagances weilded by obstructionists against the will of the people, who always have the “best” info., and hence make the “best” decisions. It’s a means to enact one-voice leadership, and Bush is succeeding brilliantly.
I don’t know how in-depth the reporting on these tend to be; I doubt Fox News goes out of its way to point out that the attendees are invited and the questions scripted in advance. As Loopydude says, the events are very effective political theater; they allow the administration and its media allies to depict ordinary Americans displaying interest and enthusiasm in the President’s plan, and the hope is that the example will gradually trickle into the mass consciousness.
Is the President well-served by this? The question implies that by suppressing opposition, the President is somehow being deprived of another vital perspective on his plan, but this isn’t really the case. The White House knows no one other than die-hard conservatives and investment bankers want this change, and they’ve always known it. This is not about what the public wants, or even what the public needs: it’s about unravelling a publicly popular but, in conservative circles, intensely reviled piece of New Deal legislation. In other words, it’s pure ideology; what ordinary Americans think of it doesn’t even enter into the equation.
That remains to be seen. The Dems are likely a lost cause, but the Pubs who are up for mid-term elections etc. might feel pressured by consituents if those constituents can be persuaded. Like I said, it’s a bottom-up approach.
Since Bill Frist is in The Washington Post today saying ‘Maybe we might vote in 2006’ due to the backlash among the Republican Congressmen and their constituents I think it might not be working as well as they wish.
Perhaps the OP should read “Would Bush be better served by preaching to the unconverted”. Since the plan as crafted cannot hold up to critical scrutiny, I’d say no, he would not be. His best hope to push it through is probably the very tactic he is implementing, being political theater. If that fails, what better option has he got?
30-second sound bites on the local news showing Bush preachin’ the Social Security Reform propaganda and a truckload of potted plants all applaudin’ it.
They could probably save a bit of effort by recording some suitable clips in the White House basement and then passing it to the local networks as news McNuggets, except that having the POTUS actually show up in your hometown – even if it is to sell snakeoil – makes for bigger headlines.
The great thing for Bush about these Potemtkin village appearances is that there is little to no chance that he will be surprised with a hard-hitting question along the lines of : “Explain to me again how borrowing several trillion dollars to fund private accounts will help preserve and strengthen Social Security.”
And even if they do, people certainly know that all commercial advertising is staged, but no one with any knowledge of commerce would argue that commercials don’t work.
Yes they are or will do. Decades of advertising suggest you are or will be wrong.
Members of his own party are political people. Forget them. It’s the lumpen mass whose votes make up the majority.
From today’s Washington Post, quoting from a New York Times article:
"On Social Security, 51 percent said permitting individuals to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in private accounts, the centerpiece of Mr. Bush’s plan, was a bad idea, even as a majority said they agreed with Mr. Bush that it would become insolvent by the middle of the century if nothing were done.
“The number who thought private accounts were a bad idea jumped to 69 percent if respondents were told that the private accounts would result in reduced benefits, and 45 percent said Mr. Bush’s plan private account plan would actually weaken the economic underpinnings of the nation’s retirement system.”
Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly sees Bill Frist’s Social-Security-may-have-to-wait-till-2006 comments as a white flag:
"You don’t say stuff like this in public unless you’re pretty close to giving up. Combine that with pessimism from other Republican senators and Tom DeLay’s unwillingness to even address Social Security unless the Senate goes first, and I think it’s safe to say that privatization is doomed. And if it’s doomed this year, it’s sure as hell doomed next year, with midterm elections approaching.
“At this point, the only question left is how hard Bush will try to cut some kind of compromise deal with Democrats. And about all I can about that is: Don’t. Don’t do it unless you get something really good in return. And even then, you probably still shouldn’t do it. Caveat emptor.”
This commercial ain’t working. Would someone with a knowledge of commerce keep running the same ad if they saw that fewer and fewer people were buying the product (least of all the their own salespeople and marketing staff)?
I don’t follow your sentiment here, Elvis. Are you suggesting that by tackling the third rail or American politics Bush isn’t cashing in on his political capital? If anything your quote is a good example of Bush doing exactly what he said he would. He’s got political capital from winning the election and he’s using it to attempt to reform a program that no other politician dares to touch.
A few months ago Social Security privatization wasn’t on anyones mind. Politicians were afraid to mention any sort of reform lest they anger the powerful AARP. Most people simply accepted social security as a reality that was never going to be changed.
Now, after a short time we have 49 percent of people saying that privatization is a good idea and a majority agreeing that it is heading for insolvency! This is great news for those of us who want out of the ponzi scheme.
More and more people are becomming aware of the problems Social Security faces. The more people are educated about the inherent waste of Social Security not taking advantage of compounding interest like private investment accounts would the weaker this once rock solid program becomes. Even if Bush fails, he’s laying the groundwork for other attempts to privatize Social Security later.
Everybody in this thread seems willing to ignore the progress Bush is making and claim an early victory. It never ceased to amaze me how willing the left is to underestimate Bush.
You have an odd definition of “cashing in” there - one indistinguishable from “pissing away”. Look at any poll on the subject - support for Bush’s notion of privatizing SS has dropped steadily the longer he keeps his hand on the rail. Support for actually reducing guarantees or benefits is minuscule and still dropping. [/url=http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=238]Pew has approval for his efforts down to 29% by now.
And a “notion” is all it is; he never actually went to the work of creating a proposal detailed enough to discuss seriously, much less tried to sell it to the unconverted, as one actually “spending his capital” would do. Bush has not decharged the third rail at all, in fact, by making enough people to think seriously about the subject that they oppose it now, he’s put a force field around the rail that no successor dares penetrate.
So yes, to the extent he actually did earn any political capital from the election, it’s gone now, and there is nothing to show for it. Worse, through his typical “you’re with us or against us” bullshit, he’s bungled it so badly that there is less chance now than before of anything of the sort ever happening.
So what do you think Bush has purchased with the political capital you say he’s “spent”?
On what planet does that reflect anything definable as “success”? The same one where a transfer-payment system, requiring income simply to equal outgo, is a “Ponzi scheme”, requiring geometric increases in income, apparently. But not Earth.
Far be it from me to say any such thing. I’m just wondering why they keep it up (not that I mind in the slightest - my distrust of this administration knows no limits).
Give me a break. It’s been a couple of months and Bush has made great strides in an area no one else dares touch. Since he hasn’t been completely successful you are immediately jumping to the silly conclusion not only that his effort has been a total failure, but that all his political capital is gone.
I know you hate Bush. I really get it. You hate, hate, hate him. It would be nice if you at least tried to mask it, though, and attempted to do some thinking before you once again hold Bush to the most unrealistic of standards.
