As you all surely know by now, I did not become the new DNC Chair. But man oh man, I wish I could assume the reins for just one day. I would commission one commercial and then retire. I think the commercial I have in mind could single-handedly deliver a Pennsylvania Senate seat to the Dems.
In case you haven't seen it, Man-on-Dog Santorum was captured on video entering a town hall meeting on Social Security while local college Republicans chanted "hey-hey-ho-ho-Social-Security-has-gotta-go." If I were DNC Chair, that commercial would be airing tomorrow in Pennsylvania and would continue to air throughout the spring and summer. Just to make sure everyone understood the chanting, I would add large, scary-looking subtitles in all caps that translated the chants, followed by some excerpt of Santorum making the case for "reform."
In case you don't know, Pennsylvania has the second highest senior population in the nation. As DNC Chair, I would gleefully crunch the numbers and air the ad in the oldest, Reddest (as in Red State) parts of the state. I'd put him on defense on his own turf - and I wouldn't shut up about it until November 2006. If I were Casey, I'd enter the race right now and explain that I felt compelled to do so in the name of Social Security. The press would eat that up - and it would instantly make the 2006 election a referendum on Social Security. "Casey, who claimed to enter the race to save Social Security, . . ." Casey should then run the ad every day. And every single day, he should say that Rick Santorum wants to eliminate Social Security. I don't care if Santorum recanted tomorrow. The damage is done - it's too late. He's one of the ringleaders of Bush's efforts. To be that out in front on this issue in an elderly state that is already hostile and full of socially liberal Specter Republicans seems politically moronic - principled I suppose, but moronic.
Is that fair? Yes and no. I mean, it is unfair to attribute the quotes from the crowd to Man-on-Dog, but politics ain't for sissies. (Swift Boats anyone?). Besides, although a lot of people are wishy-washy on phase-out, Santorum has long been a fan of phase-out, as have the prime movers behind Bush's "reform." The reason that the chants would stick to Santorum is because they do reflect some larger truth, and that will resonate with people - just like the unending flip-flop accusations resonated because of Kerry's sloppy handling of the war.
But the larger lesson here is that the Democrats have truly been handed an opportunity of a generation. If they can start framing the 2006 election as a referendum on Social Security - and start doing it soon - it could get ugly for the GOP, especially in the Red States.
One thing that people don't understand about the Red states is that Social Security is not a wedge issue there for the Dems. Quite the opposite in fact. Despite their social views and the opinions on national security, Red Staters love them some Social Security. And it makes sense why they should - the Red States are often poor and rural. People there depend on Social Security to avoid poverty, which is something Grover and the Club for Rich People can't empathize with. Republicans have won the votes of the Red State elderly and working class by stressing cultural issues and national security. To stray from this tried-and-true formula for success is a gamble - one with great possible rewards, but great risks too.
That's why Bush's post-SOTU tour of Red-States-with-Democratic-Senators was so fundamentally misguided. Bush can wedge these Senators on almost any issue, yet he chose the one issue that every Democrat in every region of the country can rally around. Hell, if you ask a (white) Democrat in Mississippi why they're still a Democrat, they'll probably cite Social Security. It's the one issue where every Red State Democrat has infinite political cover to support the national party's platform.
Bush's choice to take on Social Security will strengthen Red State Democrats and put a lot of Red State Republicans in jeopardy. He's handed these defensive Democrats an issue that they can seize and run with. Normally, running as a Red State Democrat requires a lot of defensiveness and triangulating and all that. And that's to be expected. But savvy Red State Democrats can avoid a lot of this by making Social Security THE big issue. I'm not kidding - if I were a campaign consultant, I would start running ads next week, even if these Republicans in question fully opposed Bush's plan. Tie this "reform" around the necks of all them - just like Ted Kennedy is tied around Democratic candidates' necks.
As for Red State Republicans, an emphasis on Social Security would put them all on the defensive. It would also open up previously "safe" seats if Dems played their cards right. Take my old home district in southern Kentucky. It's represented by Ed Whitfield, and the bordering district is represented by Ron Lewis. Both congressmen represent rural farming districts with a lot of poor people who depend on Social Security. According to Josh Marshall, both are pro-phase out. If I were in charge, I would find some socially conservative Democrat to run a single-issue campaign against them both. Social Security and nothing else - every day and at every town meeting. I would have the candidates call themselves "Social Security Democrats" - a new label that Red State Democrats could wear with pride, and could use to implicitly distance themselves from the national party in places where such connections are a political liability.
It would be great. Every question would be re-directed to Social Security. "Mrs. Candidate, what do you think about gay marriage." Response - "I'm against it, but that's not why we're here. We're to talk about Ed Whitfield's support of a plan to remove one-third of Social Security's funding, which would cause massive benefit cuts and force massive borrowing." Removing one-third of funding. Massive benefit cuts. Massive borrowing. Removing one-third of funding. Massive benefit cuts. Massive borrowing. "Mrs. Candidate, do you support Ted Kennedy." Response - "I don't give a rat's behind about Ted Kennedy, and I'll oppose him when he stands against Kentucky. What I care about is Social Security. I'm a Social Security Democrat." Removing one-third of funding. Massive benefit cuts. Massive borrowing. Say it with me everybody. Funding. Cuts. Borrowing. My. Opponent. Supports. Decreased funding. Massive cuts. Massive Borrowing. Over and over and over and over and over. Funding - Cuts - Borrowing.
If such a strategy could be successful, the Democrats would enjoy decades of benefits. For one, no one in their right mind would make a serious effort to phase out Social Security for another twenty years. Second, you give Democrats something absolutely and completely non-controversial to rally around in every single state. Democrats could deflect the traditional values questions by shifting the election to the issue of saving Social Security from its would-be destroyers. Third, success might even rob the GOP of a branch of government at a time when they were perfectly positioned to keep expanding their majority.
You can just feel it - they're scared right now. And they should be. Of course, Lieberman will certainly do all he can to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And it would be nice if we had a credible primary threat to prevent him from doing so. But even Lieberman will have a hard time screwing this up.
This is the issue people. This is our chance. If Democrats can't find away to punish them for this proposed reform, they don't deserve to govern the free world.
Note: I am not the author of this piece; it is the work of Publius. It is from his blog Legal Fiction. I have his permission to cross-post it here.