If Not Now, When?

Fred Barnes - The Weekly Standard

ON HIS WAY TO A special lunch on the day of his State of the Union address, President Bush asked why he was hosting this event. It's traditional, he was told. Indeed, for years presidents have invited television news anchors to the White House to brief them on the speech that evening. This year, Bush magnanimously kept Dan Rather of CBS on the invitation list despite the newsman's attempt to derail the president's reelection. The president told one anchor that he didn't think the anchor understood "the politics of Social Security." Another guest said critics fear Bush will try to bring down every tyrant in the world. Bush replied, sarcastically, that he didn't believe that was a criticism.

The president sounded confident about his second term. He was jaunty and joking. He said there was one thing he knew for sure: "If the president doesn't set the agenda in the second term, it'll be set for him." Bush, of course, is pursuing an aggressive agenda that would change the relationship between government and the governed both abroad and in America. He told the anchors he'd rather not bother with "littleball," one of his epithets for smaller and less consequential issues.

After months of trouble--beginning with the emergence in 2003 of a strong insurgency in Iraq and abetted by the failure to find WMD--Bush is once again in a strong position, politically and otherwise. The trend line of his presidency has been jagged. The line was flat in his first eight months in the White House, then it skyrocketed after 9/11, before drifting downward until he produced a strong Republican performance in the 2002 midterm election. Then it soared again during the war in Iraq, only to plummet as postwar turmoil set in. Following his reelection, the trajectory of the Bush presidency is again upward, buoyed by successful elections in Afghanistan and Iraq, a memorable inaugural address, and an effective State of the Union.

A White House official noted recently how lucky the president is to have Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as his chief political opponents and critics. The pair, along with Senator Edward Kennedy and possibly Howard Dean as the next Democratic national chairman, are viewed as less than formidable. But they're still capable of mounting stiff opposition to Bush's agenda, especially Social Security reform and judicial nominations. Besides, dissing a foe can be fatal. John Kerry thought Bush an unworthy rival last year and look what happened.

For now, Democrats on Capitol Hill are flummoxed. The Bush agenda is dominant across the board, as Democrats have failed to lay claim to a single issue on the table in 2005. They merely react to Bush's initiatives. Reid, the Senate minority leader, advocated a "Marshall Plan for America" in his "rebuttal" of Bush's State of the Union address. He said it would be designed to "build the infrastructure our economy needs to go and grow." It is probably more rhetorical than real. The rebuttal by Reid and Pelosi didn't actually rebut. Their speeches were written before Bush spoke.

Bush and his speechwriters labored over the Social Security section of his speech just to make the issue understandable. It was. And Bush has learned to talk about Social Security in simple terms on the stump. Long ago, he dropped the supposedly threatening word "privatization." Democrats now use it to attack Bush. The president has also abandoned the wonkish term "unfunded liability." And, instead of a "personal investment account" for younger workers, he refers to "your own personal retirement account" or "nest egg."

In the national debate over Social Security, the president has positioned himself on the side of the future and reform. "I think it makes sense to put out new ideas for an old and important system to make sure it works," he told a crowd last week in Fargo, North Dakota. "That's exactly what we are doing. I want the people, as I travel around the country, to know, one, there's a problem, [two,] I'm willing to work with members of both parties to come up with a solution, and, three, I've got an innovative idea as to how to benefit the younger workers in America."

Democrats have positioned themselves as representatives of the past and advocates of inaction. They rushed to the FDR Memorial the day after the State of the Union to emphasize their commitment to preserving Social Security largely in its current form. President Roosevelt was the father of Social Security. "They're worshipping at the altar of the past," says Republican consultant Frank Luntz. "FDR died 60 years ago." Democrats argue little needs to be done, particularly now, to sustain Social Security. "Demographic and statistical factors" show otherwise, Luntz says, "and everybody gets it" but Democrats.

Democrats in Congress aren't Bush's major problem on Social Security. For one thing, no matter how persuasive he is, he won't get many Democratic votes. Nor can he expect much sympathy from TV news anchors. But what he does need is near-unanimous support from congressional Republicans. Bush wowed them at a retreat on January 29. "I haven't seen him this fired up about anything domestically ever," says Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma. Presidential adviser Karl Rove, who's schooled himself on Social Security and become an expert, was blunt. For decades, Republicans prayed for the day they'd control Congress. Having achieved that, Rove said, it's time to do something with it.