I read this Electablog article today, and I am mightily confused about some of the conclusions.
Here is a snippet:
As we discussed at the very beginning of this process, the key early goal of Team Bush would be establish that there is in fact a Social Security problem. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary, so establishing this was no easy task.
But they've done it. The most recent polling indicates that 12% of Americans see Social Security as the number one problem facing the country. To put things into context, you should know that Social Security ranked higher on the list of current problems facing the country than either terrorism or healthcare.
I am having all kinds of problems with this post.
More on the flip side.
1. 12%. I don't understand why this number is so important. What were the percentage points before Bush's push? Who, exactly, are these 12% people?
Electablog mentions that Social Security concerns top terrorism and health care, but what he (or she?) doesn't point out is that economic problems and the war in Iraq each double the social security issue in importance. The absence of this context seemed to create the impression that Social Security is at or near the top of the list. It isn't.
So sure, let's give Bush his due for bringing Social Security from X% to 12%, but I would be careful drawing too many conclusions from this. Bush's propaganda machine could start making noise about the "Tubular Plastic Duck Issue" and you would probably see a jump in importance for the "Tubular Plastic Duck Issue," simply due to the brainwashing generated by Fox News.
2. Secondly, with apologies to those I know disagree, Republicans are NOT the only folks who have campaigned on the idea that Social Security is in trouble.
Has everyone been asleep for the last decade?
If Bush is making message headway on "social security as a problem", its not headway based on a void. It's headway based on about a decade of "the sky is falling" fear-mongering and shilly-shallying from both republicans AND democrats. How many times, in the last decade, have we heard this statement: "Social security will be bankrupt in X years".
A billion, I think. From both sides.
3. Gallup, gallup, gallup, gallup, gallup.
Anyway, I am not foolish enough to believe that this Social Security mess will bring the Democratic Party great big fields of Victory Wheat, but I can't help wondering if our losing record is turning us into defeatists.
12%? Pshaw. We should keep an eye on it, but I felt like this analysis was a bit weak. Is there something here that political scientists get that I don't? If so, lemme know, I live to learn.