It turns out that there is a mini-war raging within the GOP right now over Social Security reform — a kind of war for the GOP’s soul, between the issue-oriented libertarians and the more nuts-and-bolts-do-what-it-takes-to-win political operatives who many believe have been unleashed by the White House.
At issue is the highly controversial campaign by pro-Bush-plan USANext to try and link up the anti-Bush-plan AARP in the public mind with gays. The Libertarians don’t believe that’s the way to go.
This battle essentially boils down to two approaches: confrontation or coalition? And you can see the differences graphically in a recent New York Times piece linked above. Some quotes:
The Cato Institute, the libertarian research organization that has long been a leader in pushing for private Social Security accounts, lashed out at USA Next, a conservative lobbying group that says it plans to spend up to $10 million on commercials and other tactics attacking AARP, the retirees’ organization.
“This is not very bright politics,” Michael Tanner, the director of health and welfare studies at Cato, said in a telephone interview. In particular, he objected to an Internet advertisement by USA Next that tries to paint AARP as an advocate of same-sex marriage. “Introducing homophobia and other things that are not relevant to Social Security reform is not helpful,” Mr. Tanner said. AARP says it has no position on same-sex marriage.
But Charlie Jarvis, the president of USA Next, said his group would not back down. “We are going to make sure their members know their position on that and every other issue,” he said of AARP, adding, “They can run, but they cannot hide.”
Another:
“You need to build a coalition to win this fight,” Mr. Tanner of the Cato Institute said. “You’re not going to get Social Security reform passed just through the right wing of the Republican Party. Groups like gays are disadvantaged by the current system, and I’d think we would want to bring them into the campaign, not insult them.”
Indeed, Karl Rove made it clear before the election that he was treating the 2004 Presidential election as a “mobilization election” where the idea was to pull out all stops to get every party militant out.
All of this begs a series of questions.
The question is whether Social Security reform can be won via a general mobilization — by pulling out all stops to get every party activist to vote — instead of concentrating on aggragating interests through a coalition. Also, after a divisive election campaign that left Americans highly polarized, what will be the consequences if a form of Social Security reform is passed after decimating groups such as the AARP?
Is it a politically cost effective way to do the country’s business? Or does the Cato Institute, with its focus on promoting the specifics of the plan rather than the perceived deficiencies of those who oppose it, have the correct approach?
Which would be the most enduring victory: one that tries to draw as many segments of Americans into it and support it, or one built on taking certain groups out that oppose it?
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.