The Washington Post’s Dan Froomkin raised a point today that can’t be emphasized enough. It has less to do with the merit of Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security and everything to do with how he’s pitching it to the nation.
As Froomkin explained perfectly, we’re dealing with a president who is only willing to endure simple questions from loyal supporters who are carefully screened by Republican activists in advance. It’s not only shameless, it should be an embarrasment to anyone who takes the political process seriously.
Bush has noted that Bill Clinton traveled the country for public events when pitching his plan to reform the nation’s health care system, and that his current campaign on Social Security will follow a similar pattern.
“I look forward to … traveling around the country discussing this issue — similar to what President Clinton did. President Clinton highlighted the issue as an issue that needed to be addressed, and an issue that needed to be solved. He fully recognized, like I recognize, that it’s going to require cooperation in the House and the Senate.”
Clinton and Bush both took on challenging issues with controversial plans, and both made hosting events outside of DC a centerpiece of the public relations strategy. But as Froomkin explained, that’s about where the similarities end.
Bush’s approach couldn’t be much more different than Clinton’s. When Bush has one of his “conversations” on Social Security, it’s with people prescreened to agree with him and he asks the rehearsed and leading questions. When Clinton had his “discussions” on Social Security, he intentionally brought opponents along with him, spoke before a mixed crowd, and let himself get grilled.
For instance, here’s the transcript of an April 7, 1998 appearance by Clinton in Kansas City. He invited Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), among others, to join him.
And while the audience was laboriously prescreened, that was so that it would not be one-sided. Members were selected by a market research company to reflect the demographic and economic characteristics of the region.
Clinton had the courage of his convictions. He genuinely believed he could answer policy questions whether they came from supporters or not. Indeed, Clinton actually encouraged critics to voice their concerns because he was confident that the strength of his ideas could persuade anyone with an open mind.
Bush, on the other hand, literally fears dissent. He’ll travel, but only to see sycophants. He’ll answer questions, but only from pre-screened supporters. He’ll defend the value of his ideas, but only to those who are already predisposed to believe everything he says.
One method leads to a meaningful policy discussion with a free exchange of ideas between regular Americans and their elected leaders. The other is the way of a coward.