For better or worse, media narratives have a huge role in influencing the outcome of political debates. When news reports talk about one side being “on the offensive” and “building support,” it affects public opinion, influences lawmakers, and casts that side’s goal in a more positive light. When a side is “reeling” and “on the defensive,” it does the opposite.
That’s why the immediate impact (or lack thereof) of Bush’s State of the Union on the Social Security debate is so interesting to me. The president has been playing up his privatization agenda since shortly after the election, but Wednesday night was his first chance to lay out a more detailed pitch to the nation. To be sure, his plan was getting hit pretty hard going into the speech, but this was Bush’s chance to start driving the narrative in a new direction.
All indications are, however, that the president flubbed his opportunity. Before the speech, the White House admitted Bush’s plan for private accounts would do literally nothing to address the system’s potential long-term shortfalls. After the speech, no minds have been changed, there’s no fresh jolt of momentum, and the narrative remains the same. If anything, it looks like Bush is slipping further from his goal.
* Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) said yesterday that his House Republican colleagues are “panic-stricken.” This comes just a few weeks after Republican senators told Karl Rove at a GOP retreat the caucus is “scared to death” of this entire debate.
* In an unexpected blow to the administration, Rep. Jim McCrery (R-La.), chairman of the subcommittee that handles Social Security, said Bush’s plan must be changed in a fundamental way if it is to have a chance. McCrery said he should scrap the idea of funding accounts with money earmarked for the Social Security trust fund.
* 44 Dems put their opposition to Bush’s plan in writing yesterday, well more than the 41 necessary to break a filibuster, and several Republican senators are almost as resistant.
Say it with me: The White House is in “disarray.”
I think the narrative is important here, because it’ll shape the rest of the debate. Bush supporters will roll out ads, but if the plan is “reeling,” the ads should be viewed as a “desperation ploy.” Bush and Cheney will hold campaign-style rallies, which could then be characterized as a “last-ditch effort” to “save face.” The storyline becomes self-fulfilling. It’s like Karl Rove’s “inevitability” strategy — in reverse.
The White House and its allies aren’t building on the success of a well-received State of the Union; they’re retreating more every day. Yesterday, a White House strategist admitted to the Wall Street Journal that even the Bush gang doesn’t believe the scheme is going to pass this year.
With this in mind, the media, which seems vaguely more enthusiastic about Bush’s plan than most Republicans, is missing the narrative that’s plainly obvious. We should be hearing reports like, “Bush’s plan, which observers believe stands little chance of passing…” and “the White House is staggering in response to widespread opposition and skepticism about the merits of the president’s plan” and so on. The Bush White House is losing this debate badly, so the plot of this story should capture a president that can’t seem to get off the ropes.
As soon as Bush’s fat-cat supporters kick in their $35 million for a massive lobbying effort, it’s the foregone conclusion about privatization’s fate that could serve as an effective counterbalance. Indeed, in an ideal world, it’d lead those donors to hold onto their money for a fight they can win and let Bush’s scheme wither on the vine.