Politics

A commenter on one of my Social Security posts wonders why I seem so pleased that the "poisoned atmosphere" in Washington is going to make real Social security reform impossible when I am a stated fan of social security reform.

Well I have to admit that as much as I'd like to see Social security fixed, I might prefer to see Bush and his friends in Washington come up empty on this one.

All movements have their peaks and valleys. 

The Democrats peaked in the 60s with Lyndon Johnson's Great Society and have been in decline ever since. 

The Clinton years were more of an exception to that trend than any kind of reversal. 

One could argue that the Democrats overreached in the 60s and went much farther than the general public was comfortable with and have been paying the price ever since.

The Republicans also blew it in the 20s when they created a "laissez faire" approach to business and life that resulted in the great depression.

The Republicans had a few moments like the Eisenhower years, but the Republican party was generally the minority party from the 1930s until the election of Richard Nixon in 1968.

That was the beginning of the rise of Republicanism that has marked the last 40 years.  The rise was greatly strengthened by the Reagan years and is, in my opnion, reaching its peak in the administration of George W. Bush.

I like patterns and waves.  I believe that the pendulum swings back and forth in regular frequencies.

And so, like the 40 year run that the Democrats had, ending with Great Society, the 40 year run that the Republicans have had may end with the overreach of the current Bush administration with its cowboy capitalism and cowboy imperialism.

And I think Social Security reform may well be the straw that breaks the camels back.

At least I hope so.

Comments

[Don]

Fred, Why would you want to see this issue fail regardless of who controlled congress. This isn't a new problem, Clinton brought it to the forefront in 1998. Wouldn't this just be good for the country (full disclosure: I am a lifelong Republican and understand that my party would gain from this).

Love your blog. Read it every day.

[Bob Struble]

I could rail on about letting your politics trump your principles, but I won't.

While I agree with your swings concept, I disagree on your dating. THe last Dem era began with FDR, and did not end until Reagan. He changed everything. W is putting a lot of his principles, undoable at the time, into practice.

The reasons the Dems should fear SS reform is that it will create a nation of owner/investors, who are over time, going to be more and more attracted to Republican policies. In this sense, Bush/Rove are really swinging for the fences, and trying to create a durable majority that could last as long as the FDR reign did.

So, the good Dem that you are, you should be violently opposed, on political grounds. But as you state, it without any doubt is the right thing to do...

[aaron wall]

>The reasons the Dems should fear SS reform is ...

Is because as current politicians are trying it, it could help further consolidate wealth and help turn the bulk of the country into an poverty ridden armpit ghetto.

[David]

Instead of trying to block everything the current leadership is trying to do (evern if you agree with it!) try working with them towards a better future. Your lack of insight is telling in your political postings - such that it makes me no trust your business writings as well. (after all - would you give monies to a CEO who was as one-sided as you are towards problem resolution)?

[Tom]

Fred,

I think Bush is in a win win for the Republicans. The Social Security problem will not go away. So if he reforms it, it is another major success for the Republicans to put in their hat. If it fails to be accomplished, the Democrats will be on record as the party who blocked it. Then when Social Security starts having significant problems, the Democrats will be boxed in as the party that stopped any reform.

The best thing for long term strategy would be for the Democrats to allow a fix to happen, but a much watered down fix that is inneffective. Then they can hang it on the Republicans, and say they can do better.

If Bush holds out for an all or nothing vote on his program, the Democrats will have all of the baggage of the NEW SOCIETY and the NEW DEAL hanging on them for the next 20 to 30 years. And then they are in deep trouble.

Tom

[Tom Grey - Liberty Dad]

You claimed to favor the idea that "each generation should pay for itself". Why not "each family should pay for itself", as has been done for centuries? Or "each person should pay for themselves"?

The real issue is transparency -- having more people see how much they pay in, and how much they get back.

At least you accept the reality that it's broken.

About 68% of American families are homeowners, that number keeps going up.

On the swings of Dems and Reps, the Dem peak was Carter, who allowed genocide in Cambodia without a peep, and who was the first Pres. elected after the terrible Roe v. Wade SC "amendment" to legalize abortion on demand.

It was then that the Dems began to excommunicate any and all leaders who think the killing of a human fetus is wrong, and should be discouraged by policy. (Clinton at least used words to discourage it.)

Kerry got about 21 million more votes than Bush on "economic/ spending/ tax" issues; Bush got about 22 million more votes than Kerry on "moral values"; both got about the same 22 million votes on "terrorism/ Iraq".

See my 3 dimensional analysis of the Pew numbers.
http://tomgrey.motime.com/1103050095#389023