Saying Social Security Isn't So Bad is Bad "Framing"

I'm hearing a lot lately about how the opponents of SS privatization are making the argument that SS really isn't in such bad shape. It disturbs me because I strongly believe that such "framing" will be counterproductive.

Claiming that SS isn't in such bad shape will not be persuasive to the public because fears about SS have been expressed by both parties over the past several elections (for eons, really). To now take the position that everything's okay places us directly in Rove's target as "naive" liberals, and facilitates their attempts to steal our mantle as the protectors of SS.

If this sounds familiar, it should. It's the same tactic they use on everything from crime to foreign policy, and it resonates with voters who fear being "wimpy" in our response to issues. These guys are masters at playing the "toughness" card, and we deal it to them face-up by trying to minimize the problems with SS (EVEN if it's true).

The proper "framing" of this issue is to stress the "reckless" and "radical" departure that privatization represents. This is what recent polls suggest is our strongest suit and it will work much better with voters across the board who clearly believe it's more important to make sure there's a guaranteed SS benefit than to allow experiments with privatization.

Here's the pitch:

"The President's proposal to let people put their Social Security dollars into the stock market takes the "security" out of Social Security. Don't let him and the Republican Congress dismantle one of our nation's greatest achievements. Support the party that created Social Security in our efforts to make sure it's always there in the years to come. The Democrats."

We must stress the Democratic legacy on this issue. It sooths people's concerns about keeping the program "secure" to know that we're still there to look out for them. Our history on this issue is rock solid but we should not assume that everyone knows this. Cripes, I'd bet most voters don't even know FDR was a Democrat. Rove and the Republicans understand this and they are already banking on public ignorance by running FDR ads as we speak.

This game is not tennis, where we hit every ball back or we lose the point. It's chess, and Rove and his boys are the Boris Spasky's of politics. They're already onto their second move and we need to catch up, rather than keep fighting move 1.

That's why it's CRITICAL to include our campaign a large amount of public education about who brought them SS to begin with. And we need to repeat it over, and over, and over again. (Like Bush at the debates-we laughed, he won). If we do this, we will remain in charge of the debate and keep the burden on Bush to show why we need a risky new change.

This may seem simple or even elementary, but it's true. The people out there who will turn this debate are not dKos bloggers. They need to know the history on this issue. That's the winning "frame" in this debate.