Lost in the cacophony of post-election analysis were the
implications of what November 5th means for the future of Social
Security reform. Despite all the media stories about Republicans
running away from the Social Security issue and avoiding the word
“privatization,” there was some very good news: Democrats’ scare
tactics are wearing thin.
While exit poll results (increasingly suspect) suggest that
voters concerned with Social Security still favor Democrats, the
actual election results tell a more nuanced tale. The tale starts
in South Dakota, were GOP nominee for Senate, John Thune, muddled
his Social Security position. He even went so far as to accuse
incumbent Democrat, Tim Johnson, of being the one who wanted to
“privatize” Social Security. Barring a recount miracle, it appears
that Thune has lost by about 500 votes.
Compare that to Senate candidates Jim Talent (Missouri), John
Sununu (New Hampshire), and House candidate and incumbent Jim Leach
(Iowa). Each won by relatively small margins of 1%, 4%, and 6%,
respectively. Although none of them made reform a prominent issue
in his campaign, none of them ever backed away from personal
accounts as an option for younger workers. Despite being attacked
with a flurry of Democratic ads, both Sununu and Talent maintained
their positions in support of reform. Leach’s opponent, Julie
Thomas, made news when she signed an AFL-CIO pledge against
privatizing Social Security. Despite this, Leach insisted in a
televised debate he was open to the option of personal
accounts.
Next consider the two candidates who made reform a major issue
in their campaigns. One was North Carolina Senate candidate
Elizabeth Dole, who discussed the issue often at campaign stops.
The other was Rep. Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania’s 15th district. In a
district with a heavy elderly population, Toomey made personal
accounts a centerpiece of his campaign, resulting in a feature
about him on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page. These two
candidates had even larger victory margins. Elizabeth Dole won by
9%, and Toomey won by 14%, his biggest margin to date.
So why did Republicans who stuck by their guns do so well? A
recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll provides an important clue. The
poll does show that support for personal accounts has waned, from
63% in April 2002 to 52% in September. However, an even larger
majority is worried about the current system. A full 67% either say
it is in a “crisis” or faces “major problems.” Even for the
65-and-older cohort, the number is a substantial 43%. That is
little changed from December 1998. So while support for reform
fluctuates, anxiety about the current system persists.
Enter into this picture the Democrats who have nothing more to
offer than scare tactics and nice-sounding fluff like “shoring up
the Social Security Trust Fund.” Thus, voters find no answers about
their concerns with the current system among Democrats. This leaves
them no alternative but the Republicans, or at least those
Republicans willing to stand up for reform. Voters may not be
enthusiastic about personal accounts. But they aren’t willing to
punish candidates who propose them because it is better than
candidates who propose nothing.
Before reform proponents get too excited, they must realize that
Tuesday’s results only mean that the Democrats’ scare tactics have
lost much of their sting. The results do not mean that voters are
sold on the idea of personal accounts. They aren’t. There is a long
and arduous battle to be fought before that day comes. But reform
proponents can take some heart, for in the coming battle the
opposition no longer has one of its biggest weapons.
