It's good to see that the circular firing squad is in fine form this morning. I'll refrain from commenting on much of that, other than to note that I'm sure--somewhere--there's a group of stamp collectors out there who are convinced that the reason the Democrats got beaten yesterday was due to inadequate support of philately.
Instead, I want to discuss a longer-term issue--one which could have huge impacts on the future of this country, and on the Democratic Party.
And that issue is the prospect of inter-generational warfare. Not the shooting kind (hopefully), but the political kind.
Some may assert that this war is already being fought, albeit by one side (much as Warren Buffet, no less, notes that the rich are fighting and winning the class war). And the 2010 election, if not a battle in that war, was certainly a border skirmish--with the GOP taking (or pretending to take) the side of senior citizens.
This senior-pandering has been going on, more or less, since 2006, when the Dems clubbed the Repubs over privatizing Social Security--a lesson the GOP took note of. In this election, many Republicans portrayed themselves as defenders of senior interests. HCR was framed both as a) a plot to control health costs by offing Grandma--the whole "death panels" meme, and b) a threat to Medicare. And even those Republicans who dared attack Social Security--still a sacred cow in US politics--were careful to make it clear that EXISTING retirees would get paid out; they just want to end the system for the next generation.
And politically--it appears to have worked. Other factors played into the election, but the 2010 electorate was older than the 2008 electorate (common in midterms), and overwhelmingly voted Republican.
To some Democrats, this all may seem like good news long term. As time passes, older voters die, and are replaced with younger ones turning 18; and the CW is that these younger voters (when they bother to vote) vote overwhelmingly Democratic.
But if you are counting on the millenials to save Democrats, you had better think again.
Social Security, of course, is not the biggest problem in the US budget picture. It's actuarially sound, if one assumes that the massive pile of US government securities held by the trust fund actually get paid. Obviously, there have been suggestions that the US might default on some of its obligations to SSI (as well as the suggestion that there ought to be no budgetary distinction between Social Security and the rest of the federal budget), but Social Security itself is in good shape.
The bigger problem is local government pensions; many of which are underfunded (or not funded at all). Much as the Feds have long loved deficit spending (particularly under Reagan and Dubya), because it permits politicians to defer difficult or unpopular decision-making, so to have local governments. Of course, most local governments CAN'T deficit-spend in the traditional sense--many are legally constrained in their ability to borrow, and only Uncle Sam is a currency-issuer. But one exception to this, which many local officials (Democratic and Republican) have long taken advantage of--is the "magic" of public employee pensions. For years, all around the country, local officials have avoided difficult budgetary choices (raise taxes, cut services, or bargain harder with politically-powerful public employee unions) via the widespread use of deferred compensation. And until the recent passage of GASB 45, there was no requirement to actually fund public employee pension funds, or even record the debt on the books. It's long been accepted that public employees are paid less than equivalent private sector positions, but enjoy greater benefits--there's a reason for this. By deferring compensation, public officials were able to simultaneously keep taxes low, keep service levels high, and keep their workers happy.
The problem, of course, is that this has been going on for years, with nothing to show for it but a large pile of red ink. And now, a huge wave of public employees are retiring and drawing pensions--causing a cash crunch for local governments all around the country. This applies to both red states (like Texas) and blue states (like California), both of which have many billions in retirement-related debt, and political cultures/legal systems which make raising taxes to pay for it damn near impossible. And other than by defaulting, there probably isn't any means by which local governments, on their own, can discharge this debt (assuming that doing so is a priority)--the Contract Clause in the Constitution essentially prohibits states from unilaterally altering (by law) their pension arrangements.
What does this have to do with inter-generational warfare?
Simple. How long do you think it will be before young voters--the huge millenial demographic boom--note that the older generation is thriving, while they are suffering through a stagnant economy, and high tax bills which largely go to paying off un(der)funded pension debt, rather than providing services? Ho long before young voters decide that "I didn't vote for this debt--I don't want to pay it". How long before young voters decide that because Grandma and Grandpa's generation didn't adequately fund their own pensions, that Grandma and Grandpa's benefits should now be cut? How long do you think before this becomes the political issue?
Now, ask this question: Which political party do you think would be happy to demagogue this issue, as a way of staying in power?
It probably won't happen in 2012 (though it might). But I predict that within this decade, the following will occur--as soon as it becomes demographically advantageous.
* The GOP will suddenly "discover" the plight of the young, and advocate a massive program of pension repudiation/devaluation (implemented at the federal level, as the Feds are the only level of government that has the power to alter existing pension arrangements).
* The boomers, and older generations (which the GOP has been relentlessly pandering to for the past several years) will suddenly be portrayed as a pack of parasites, who squandered taxpayers money on themselves while screwing over the next generations. Labor unions and Democrats, of course, will be implicated--the pension situation will be cast as the result of generations of labor self-dealing. GOP culpability in this--of which there is plenty--will be conveniently forgotten.
* The difference between public pensions annd Social Security will of course be equated, so expect an attack on SSI and Medicare at some point as well.
* And should any or all of this succeed, the savings won't be reinvested or used to actually pay down other debts. Instead, more Tax Cuts For The Rich.
As we've seen, the GOP of the past decade is a political chameleon--assuming whatever positions it thinks will win it votes, and then doing something completely different behind the scenes. If you think this scenario is not plausible, you have not been paying much attention.
I know that in the post-election hangover, it's tempting to blame the apostates in your midst rather than focusing on the true threat. It's Obama's fault for being too centrist. It's Obama's fault for being too liberal. Too bi-partisan. Not bi-partisan enough. Fuck all of that.
Rove and company are thinking long term. And they are counting on Democrats and progressives failing to do so.
The generational war is coming.
It will be here sooner than you think.
And it will not be pretty.
Are you ready?