Voters Get It...They Just Don't Like It

A recent Op-Ed piece by David Brooks in the New York Times (A Requiem For Reform), suggests that the failure of the Republicans to secure so-called 'Social Security reform' represents a textbook case of politics gone awry.

In this view, the Republicans have played a tone-deaf tune to the American public, who would surely follow the Piper's tune, if only the dissonance were removed. He seems to think that better presentation would also have solved the cross-party issues in Congress.

In the same vein, Democrats are equally at fault for failing to look forward and fearing to cross the "Howard Dean hotheads" in the party. He indicts an unwillingness to compromise, or even to make a counteroffer.

Finally, he takes a slap at the American voter, who, according to Brooks, has apparently been racking up high entitlement spending and low taxes for thirty years, and charged the tab to their grandchildren.

I take issue with the idea that the failure of Social Security 'reform' is a failure of politics.

First of all, the whole issue isn't dead yet. Look for a repackaging of the whole program, bundled with a tax cut, or tacked onto a military-spending appropriation to be floated shortly. Failing that, I expect we will see a number of executive directives with the force of law that effectively force changes to the system without a vote.

Secondly, just because someone suggests something, doesn't mean it is a failure if it is not enacted. It is one of the great strengths of this system that vigorous offense and defense blend together to form a sieve that filters out the worst ideas. Sometimes the best thing we can do is take no action, or 'do no harm'.

The suggestion that Republicans have somehow failed to get their message out, or have somehow flubbed, it is patently ridiculous when entire government agencies have been turned into propaganda machines, and public relations firms and reporters alike are being hired to preach to the masses. It is far more likely that Americans have chosen not to drink the kool-aid on reform just yet.

To complain about Democratic intransigence willfully ignores the three trends which have made it politically impossible for them to do otherwise (and none of the three has anything to do with Howard Dean).

The first trend was set into motion by Republicans when they decided that the only way to keep the country from drifting leftward was to refuse to compromise with the moderates and liberals in Congress. This strategy, once the party got its members in line, has been so effective as to permit both the Executive and the Legislative branches to be controlled by Republicans, even though Americans tend to favor a divided government. Democrats have little choice but to dig their feet in if they wish to pull the country back to the center.

The second trend falls into the 'once-bitten, twice-shy' category, and the blame falls squarely on this President, the standard-bearer for the new "Reagan Republicans". Every time a moderate Democrat has reached across the aisle to co-sponsor favored administration legislation, he or she has been burned politically. Even moderates within his own government have been undercut, ousted or sent into the political wilderness.

The third trend is procedural within the Congress itself. House Democrats have been hamstrung by procedural changes that prevent them from proposing bills or participating in law-making in any meaningful way. (For an excellent read on the subject, see Michael Crowley's "Oppressed Minority" in the New Republic). Being the minority in the Senate presents a similar problem. It has grown so bad that Republicans are seeking to rewrite the rules on breaking a filibuster (the so-called 'Nuclear Option') because the Democrats have had to threaten it so often to gain any leverage at all. So its a bit disingenuous to suggest that a counterproposal could have been made.

As for the blame allocated to the American people, this amounts to indicting the victim instead of the mugger. The last time the American voter actually went to the polls to vote over an economic issue, they put Reagan in office (think "oil crisis"). The politicians in this country have spent the last twenty five years exploiting culturally divisive class, race and religious issues for the express purpose of diverting attention from economic issues. The growth in corporate welfare, unnecessary and wasteful military spending and the huge disparities in return on federal tax dollars between red and blue states are just a few of the "entitlements" we have apparently been "demanding".

Meanwhile, schools are in scandalous disrepair, pensions have been replaced by 401K plans, families have gone from one job to four to make ends meet, homeownership is out of reach for huge swathes of the population, health care has been priced out of reach, pollution is on the upswing, traffic has made everyday tasks herculean and there are virtually epidemic breakouts of asthma and autism with no apparent cause. Please, please congressman! Raise my taxes back up to pay for these "entitlements". I can't live without them.

The truth of the matter is that most Americans are too busy trying to keep afloat to have the time to pay attention to politics the way the boomers did. Therefore, they feel more comfortable voting on issues for which opinion (or well-settled belief) is the only requirement for making a judgement. We shouldn't be blamed for using the cliff notes provided by politicians and (increasingly) ineffective media.

Politics should be about representing everyone, not blind obeisance to the dominant political party. On that score, politics may be failing...but on Social Security it's working just fine.