Other Columns by Paul M. Weyrich
Paul M. Weyrich Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

Page 2 of 2

Second, the reason the Republicans were able to defeat Clinton over healthcare is because Hillary insisted on an all-or-nothing approach. Dave Hoppe, then Chief of Staff to Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.), who co-coordinated the opposition to Hillary Care both inside and outside the Senate, can tell you that some Republicans bent over backwards to offer compromise proposals to the Clinton folks but Hillary would hear none of it. Hoppe and all the rest of us held our breath lest Hillary accept the compromise because had she done so she would have achieved two thirds or more of her objectives. She was rigid. Uncompromising.

This, in contrast to the president, who has remained flexible and open to any idea put forth by the Congress, regardless of party. Finally, the Republicans won because, as Fox News analyst Fred Barnes has pointed out, they were able to hang some slogans around the Clinton health care plan which stuck. The Republicans pointed to this massive complex government takeover of our health-care system, something the public was reluctant to accept. But then Republicans were able to suggest that Hillary Care might mean you could no longer choose your own doctor. With that the program became unpopular, which unpopularity stiffened the spines of some GOP Senators.

So while the president has suffered some minor setbacks for Social Security reform, he is by no means out of the ballgame. First, he has yet to present his actual plan. So Democrats are really shadow-boxing because we don't know exactly what his plan will contain. Second, the president is only in phase one of his education plan. He is trying to convince the American people that Social Security is in crisis and must be fixed. The same polls which show that the president's plan (even though he has yet to present one) has lost support also show that the public now is convinced that Social Security is in trouble.

That means phase one of the president's initiative is, in fact, a success because remember it was Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and others who have consistently said that there is no crisis in the Social Security system. The polls which have the Democrats bringing out the champagne bottles also show that 65% of voters under the age of 40 strongly support the idea of private accounts. It is with voters 55 and older where the opposition to the Bush initiative has taken place. If those voters can be convinced they will be held harmless by any plan which will help the younger workers, then most likely their opposition will largely diminish.

Am I suggesting here that a major overhaul of Social Security is a slam dunk? Not quite. In this town it is always very hard to change things and much easier to stop change. What I am suggesting is before the Democrats celebrate too much they ought to remember that George W. Bush has been so successful precisely because he has always been underestimated. I was at a meeting last week where Karl Rove described the president's feisty determination on this issue. What I am saying is this: a) Social Security reform is far from dead; and b) Don't count out George Bush. He might be on the ropes temporarily but watch for him to come out slugging.

------------

Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.

--------------------

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.

>> Back -- Page 1 2