Yes, I would call this defeatism

Hesiod, of the late and lamented blog Counterspin, has re-emerged as a contributor (actually a "Current Relief Driver") to The American Street. Yesterday, he suggested that the Dummycrats are about to get screwed on Social Security.

The argument, in a nutshell, is this: Shrub realizes he can't get his plan for privatization passed. Instead, he agrees to some other change which would actually be beneficial, such as raising the ceiling on income taxable for Social Security purposes. That gets presented as "the president's plan" and the GOPpers take credit for the idea. The Dims then either have to "sign on to the president's plan" or get hammered as "obstructionists" during the 2006 campaign, politically losing either way.

Hesiod, for all his often valuable insights, has a tendency to see things though a veil of helplessness, one that sees opponents as constantly outhinking and out-strategizing what he supports. That can lead him seriously astray: I recall clearly, for example, that during the confrontation and fighting in Najaf, he declared several times "[Moqtada] al-Sadr has won" politically if not militarily. I said at the time that instead, al-Sadr had actually come to realize he'd overplayed his hand and was trying to back down as gracefully as he could. (See, for example, here. I think subsequent events have shown which of us got that bit right.

And here again he's wearing his "not only can it get worse, it will and there's no hope" hat, preparing for defeat even before the battle is truly joined. But I say that the only way the Democrats can fail to "stave off this outcome" of political disaster is sheer incompetence. (Okay, then, maybe it is inevitable after all.)

Seriously, though, the fact is the Dems can declare with confidence "There is no crisis! A system that might face a problem in 40 years or so is not in crisis! Why is the GOP trying so hard to stampede us into performing a risky, untested experiment on a system that has worked well for 70 years? What are they really after?"

They then could advocate eliminating - not just raising, eliminating - the ceiling on income for paying SS taxes, noting that according to SSA's own actuarial memo, that would cover all projected future benefits through at least 2079, as far out as current projections reach - and does it without taking a single extra penny out of the pockets of the hard-working families of the great American middle class. (TalkingPointsMemo has some details.) And after all, they could say, aren't those the people whose interests the GOP says it wants to protect? The GOPpers don't like that idea? They gripe about "tax increases?" On who? The only ones who would pay more are those earning at least an amount roughly double the median income. So whose side are they on?

And if the Dems get called "obstructionists," don't dispute it: Embrace it! Classic Rovian political strategy is to attack the opponent precisely where they seem strongest. That's why, for example, through their sock puppets in the Swift Boat Veterans for Lies, the White House attacked John Kerry's Vietnam service. That's why now the new stand-ins are taking aim at the AARP. So don't dodge their best shot, don't duck and cover, celebrate it! I said this back on December 20, but it bears repeating.

"They call me obstructionist? Damn straight! When they try to destroy rather than build, I will obstruct them! When they try to undermine rather than support, I will obstruct them! When they try to steal your future with deceptions and distortions, I will obstruct them! There is no crisis in Social Security - Social Security is not going to go bankrupt, it is not going to disappear - and make no mistake about it, they are lying to you - they are lying to you - when they tell you otherwise.

"Does Social Security need some minor adjustments to protect it far, far into the future? Probably. But I say again, there is no crisis! And whether you are 60-something or 20-something, Social Security will be there for you when you need it. That is, unless they get their hands on it. Because they are like people who will look at a house with a few broken windows and propose burning it to the ground. And if someone stands in front of that house and says 'Why not just fix the windows?' they will cry 'Obstructionist!' Well, I say that in a case like this, in a situation like this, faced with their deceit, 'obstructionist' is a label I will wear with pride - because I would rather be an obstructionist than a destroyer."

The Shrub team is losing on this. They know they're losing. Public support is dropping and it seems the more people hear about privatization, the less they like it. Even Republicans are trying to step away from it. The Shrubberies will pull out every trick to try to distort and reframe the discussion but the fact is, Social Security is a good program, a successful program, a popular program, a program that shows that government can work (all of which is precisely why they hate it) - and with all that being true, the only way the Democrats can be politically hurt by opposing Bush is by sheer incompetence.

Then again, that is part of the reason I call them the Dummycrats.

Footnote: In the course of writing this, I thought of another image in addition to the house with the broken windows.

"Does Social Security need some minor adjustments? Probably. We've tinkered with the system from time to time to keep it in good shape - such as the surplus that was built up and is still being built up to deal with the retirement of the baby boomers - and I'm sure we'll have to tinker with it again. Think of it like tuning up your car, making the adjustments to keep everything running smoothly. Their idea of a tune-up would be to take the wheels off the car and tell you they've 'secured' it. Well, I suppose that would make a tune-up unnecessary - but your car won't do you a damn bit of good afterwards."

Keep chanting the mantra: There is no crisis!