Jerome Armstrong
comments on Bill Clinton's suggestion that it is time for Democrats to put
forward a plan for Social Security:
Clinton will be dead and gone before Social Security needs to be changed,
but he's decided that he's had enough of seeing Bush get his ass kicked by
Democrats over the issue of Social Security. Did the Republicans come up
with a plan when the Clintons tried to reform Healthcare? No, and that's
why Bill Clinton got the Democratic Congressional leadership's head handed
to him after the '94 midterm election. Now though, Clinton is supplying
Republican
talking points:
Former President Bill Clinton: "[I] Think [Democrats] Need To Come Up
With A Plan Of Their Own." (ABC's "Saturday Good Morning America,"
5/7/05, Via ABC News' "The Note," 5/5/05)
President Clinton: "I Think The Democrats Should Say What They Are
For On Social Security In The Next Couple Weeks ... The Democrats Should
Have A Plan And They Should Talk To The President And The Congressional
Republicans About It." (ABC's "Saturday Good Morning America," 5/7/05,
Via ABC News' "The Note," 5/5/05)
Let me guess, Hillary has a plan; let me guess, it raises taxes; let me
guess, the Clinton's are going to find a way for themselves to shine while
the Democratic Party gets beat again.
The Democratic Plan is already in action-- it's called Social Security.
The Democrat's problem has been that they have been all to willing to lend
the Republicans a helping hand just when they are most in trouble. They don't
have the killer instinct when it comes to taking advantage of the blunders of
the opposition. Does this mean that they are wimps? No, it just means that they,
generally, think beyond the simple calculus of political advantage over the
opposition and factor into it the greater needs of society (i.e., they are the
more responsible of the two parties). Clinton's suggestion that Democrats should
have a plan for Social Security is not, in itself, a bad thing. Democrats
should have plans for all the major issues of the day.
So what is the problem with Clinton's suggestion? Is it simply, as Jerome
suggests, that Clinton is trying to use the situation to the advantage of his
wife at the expense of wider Democratic goals? I prefer to leave questions of
motivation out of this. Clinton may honestly believe that it is to the Democrats
advantage to counter Bush's privatization plans with plans of their own.
Unfortunately, like so many short-sighted Democrats of recent years, Clinton
doesn't appear to understand that just offering a counter-plan provides
justification to the Republican initiative.
And that, I think, is where Democrats get into trouble. It's not that Social
Security doesn't have problems that need addressing. It's that Democrats allow
the Republicans to frame the terms of the debate and to set the agenda of
what will be debated.
Regardless of whether Democrats take up Clinton's suggestion or not, they
will still give the appearance of being purely reactionary in their public
policy. Bush made Social Security his #1 domestic issue. By offering a counter
proposal, the Democrats would, more then anything, validate Bush's assertion
that it is the #1 domestic problem facing the country today. But by
offering nothing they will also be validating that agenda, albeit indirectly, by
ceding to Bush the authority to set the agenda.
This is where Democrats need to fight back, not on whether Social Security
needs to be fixed but instead on Bush's placement of it at the top of the
domestic agenda. We need to question Bush's judgment when it comes to setting
priorities. Why has Bush devoted so much energy to this issue when there are
much more pressing problems clamoring for attention (e.g., health care, the
national debt, etc.)
And Bush's questionable judgment isn't limited to Social Security. Dubya has
a habit of focusing on the middling problems while shoving off the bigger
problems to someone else to solve. We see this domestically, but we also see it
in foreign policy, where Bush chose to move Iraq ahead of issues like the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, North Korea and yes, even international terrorism
(though he used the latter as an excuse to justify his invasion of Iraq).
Bush repeatedly demonstrates poor judgment when it comes to setting the
agenda of the US government, both foreign and domestic. By offering a
counter-proposals to Bush's initiatives, Democrats are simply validating his
agenda decisions. By ceding to him the authority to set the agenda the Democrats
are giving up on the most devastating critique they could make of his
Presidency.
Social Security faces problems, but they are not the most pressing problems
we face domestically. Bush has chosen to make it the #1 issue through a
combination of incompetence, ideology and as a payoff to the special interests
that back him.
Iraq was a problem, but it wasn't the most pressing problem we faced
internationally. Bush chose to make it the #1 issue through a combination of
incompetence, ideology and as a payoff to the special interests that back him.
Judgment is the issue.