Yesterday, Noam Scheiber made a compelling argument that Dem opposition to Bush’s Social Security scheme should include plenty of arguments based on fact and reason, but also some demagoguery. In light of a new report explaining how Bush is manipulating the Social Security Administration’s employees to parrot deceptive talking points, Scheiber argued Dems will need to do more than just point to actuarial tables.
When you’re up against an opponent who’s willing to violate just about every norm of decency to ensure political victory, you can’t play by Marquis of Queenbsbury rules. Democrats have no choice but to demagogue the issue. This is one of those rare times when our slogan actually fits on a bumper sticker — “Bush will slash your Social Security benefits.”
That’s true and I think it’s this kind of simplistic argument that resonates. But as part of the talking points, particularly before a policy plan is actually unveiled, I have another suggestion.
Comparisons between Clinton’s health care plan 10 years ago and Bush’s Social Security scheme now are pretty common, but nevertheless apt, particularly for Dems who want to learn how to kill this kind of effort. In re-reading reports from the Clinton years, it’s obvious that one of the more common attacks — which we could now use — focused on the element of secrecy.
To be sure, it was one of the more obtuse arguments against Clinton’s plan — the White House crafted its health care plan “in secret.” It was a common GOP attack, alluding to some kind of sinister agenda. After all, the argument went, if the plan were on the up-and-up, why were discussions held behind closed doors?
As demagoguery went, this was ridiculous but effective. It’s also equally applicable now.
In the ’90s, Hillary Clinton and Ira Magaziner led a task force that held months of discussions with a variety of constituencies before helping craft a plan unveiled by the president. Was the plan drafted “in secret” as the Republicans claimed? Sort of, but it’s a shallow attack. Every White House meets privately to draft policy initiatives before they’re made public. This was no different.
Nevertheless, the constant whining about Clinton “secrecy” took a toll and helped poison the well before the plan was even unveiled. Why not try the same thing now?
Bush has brought this issue to the forefront of national politics, but he has kept his policy specifics (assuming he has any) to himself. There have been no public discussions with administration officials, no bi-partisan meetings to shape an approach, no seniors’ groups brought in to offer the administration input, and no details offered in interviews. Bush’s Social Security plan, in other words, is being crafted in complete secrecy. Indeed, it’s being crafted with far more secrecy than that used by Clinton 10 years ago.
Why not raise a fuss about this? Sure, reasonable people may understand that the argument is pure demagoguery, but, as Scheiber argued persuasively, we’re dealing with an opponent “who’s willing to violate just about every norm of decency to ensure political victory.” So, why hold back? I’m not saying this should be a central argument, just a subtle aside that helps plant a seed of doubt.
People don’t like the idea of a White House keeping secrets, especially when it comes to a plan that will radically re-write the most popular and successful domestic program in American history. We could also package this as part of a pattern. (“Bush’s energy policy was crafted after secret meetings with Enron, Medicare policy was crafted after secret meetings with insurance companies, who’s in the secret Social Security meetings?”) And once the plan is formally unveiled, we could return to the line. (“No wonder the White House wrote this bill in secret — it cuts benefits for seniors, adds $2 trillion to the debt, and would ultimately kill Social Security as we know it.”)
Obviously, this argument alone will not bury Bush’s scheme, but if used repeatedly now, it could help fuel public skepticism. Just a thought.