I guess this is probably obvious to others, but it really just hit me hard watching CNN right now. The President is going to employ the same tactic he used in the buildup to the war in Iraq in the current debate about Social Security.

  1. Scare the bejesus out of everyone - “Social Security is going to implode and you’ll get no benefits” - “Nuclear weapons could get in the hands of terrorists organizations”
  2. Make pre-emption the issue, not policy - “Democrats say Social Security is fine” - “We can’t wait until we see a mushroom cloud over one of our cities”
  3. Paint opponents of specific policies as ostriches with their head in the sand

There are simple reasons why I guess this all works. The first is that it’s easier to be afraid than to be informed. In other words, if the explanation of the fear makes sense (”more people will be receiving benefits than working in 2042″), people are willing to believe it. Understanding the details and, therefore, the factors that should frame any policy formulation… well, that’s hard, even for people that all agree that something needs to be done about social security.

I remember feeling the same way about the buildup to Iraq. I wrote here that they could make a more honest case for Iraq, but it might affect their timeline and popular support. There was no serious attempt made to provide evidence about Iraq’s WMD program. You were either for pre-emptive action or willing to wait until we got attacked. Too bad a lot of people, like me, aren’t covered by either statement.

The social security debate is already getting framed the same way using pretty much the same script. On Crossfire just now, both Carlson and Stephen Moore (the “Republican” guest) repeatedly made the statement that Democrats are ignoring the issue, saying Social Security is fine. Begala and Sperling (the Dem guest today) weren’t saying that, of course, but were simply arguing that Social Security isn’t facing a catastrophic end in 2042 (it’s not) and that they would like any reform program to be funded rather than borrowed for.

On top of that, we might talk about national savings levels and the deficit (and how they’re related) or how increases in worker productivity might factor into and mitigate the gap and you can see why no one wants to think about this. It’s mildly complicated and there is no forum where we can have this discourse in a way people can trust.

Sometimes, political discourse in this country just makes me sad.