This is part of a class assignment at Davidson College.

Created by: Taylor Ansley, Last Updated: 5/2/05

Introduction

Congressman Bill Thomas (R-CA) captured the essence of framing by observing: “Semantics are very important. . . Don’t dismiss the use of a word” (Allen 3 2005). The language of politics--the frame within which debate of a given issue occurs--is the first battle in the war over Social Security reform. What was previously a White House plan for “private accounts” quickly became a push for “personal accounts” in light of revealing public opinion polls (Allen3 2005). On the other side, Democrats face a struggle to downplay the idea of a Social Security “crisis:” terminology that Bill Clinton used in 1998 (Allen3 2005). While it is too early to tell which side will win the policy debate, it is almost certain that the language battle will have far-ranging implications on both sides.

Following pressure by President Bush, the Republican leadership in both houses began the 109 th congress by presenting ten new pieces of legislation--starting with social security reform (Frist 2005). Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) described a Republican effort “to guarantee retirement security not only for this generation, but for those generations to come” (Frist 2005). That guarantee is part of the Republicans’ frame: social security is a program in danger. The doomsday attitude towards the current system stems from President Bush, who urgently insists “the crisis is here,” and that social security is “on the road to bankruptcy” (Allen3 2005). The sense of immediacy surrounding the Republican agenda can be attributed to the political volatility of the Social Security issue. Facing opposition from high-profile groups such as the AARP, Republican leaders decided to pursue Social Security reform immediately so as to provide as much time as possible “to explain [new legislation] before facing voters in the midterm elections” (Allen1 2005).

Democrats opened their own congressional agenda with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) stating “We have leaders who love to create crises that don’t exist. Social Security isn’t a crisis. For more than 50 years, we’re going to be just fine” (Reid 2005). The notion of a manufactured crisis dominates the Democratic message. In an ironic role reversal, the Democrats are earning support, especially from seniors, by promising to protect the status quo. As Congressman Bob Menendez (D-NJ) explained: “It goes to the fundamental belief Democrats have that every American [should have] a baseline of support in this country. We’re not going to let the Republicans put that security in danger” ( Billings and Cillizza 2005).

Democrats seem to sense weakness in the Republican Party; one Democratic strategist called the Bush Social Security plan an “electoral loser for congressional Republicans” ( Billings and Cillizza 2005). Many Republicans appear hesitant to support President Bush’s proposed “profound but politically risky changes in Social Security” (Allen 2 2005). In an effort to build support within the GOP, Bush reportedly told House Republicans he would be “providing some cover on some of the most important but also the toughest political battles--Social Security being at the top of that list” (Allen 1 2005). Bush viewed the center-stage platform of his February 2 nd State of the Union address, and a subsequent tour of five states, as an opportunity to build popular support behind his proposals (Allen2 2005).

Democratic strategists and polling experts agree that the minority party “ought to be playing offense” if they will stand a chance against President Bush’s bold agenda ( Billings and Cillizza 2005). Due to numerous mentions in President Bush’s State of the Union Address, and a multiple-state tour touting his plan, the idea of a “crisis” in Social Security is spreading. Cognitive linguist George Lakoff argues: “when [politicians] negate a frame, [they] evoke a frame” (Lakoff 2004, 3). That is to say, every time the Democrats argue “there is no crisis in Social Security,” they will merely be reinforcing the connotation of impending disaster in the minds of voters. For the Democrats to win the issue, they must frame the Social Security issue as a predicament caused by this administration’s tax cuts. For every time the Bush administration quotes Bill Clinton describing the “fiscal crisis in Social Security,” Democrats must answer with a quote from that same speech: “Before we spend a penny on new programs or tax cuts, we should save Social Security first” (Weisman 2005). That message, to “save Social Security first,” harkens back to Democratic campaign themes of a poorly-timed Bush tax cut and fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the current administration (Weisman 2005). To frame this issue successfully the Democrats must use the fear of change they are so often fighting and present Social Security as a troubled program that, if handled correctly, is remediable.

Despite the strong advantage of controlling majorities in both houses of Congress and the Executive Branch, Republicans face an uphill battle in trying to reform Social Security. To succeed with this issue, President Bush must clearly demonstrate to Republicans in Congress that their support of this proposal will not hurt their political futures. To ensure the safety of the GOP in the long run, Bush must do what Republicans have been so successful with in recent years: weave the issue of Social Security reform into the larger fabric of his message. This strategy was evident in Senator Frist’s press conference--the ten bills introduced by the Majority Leader framed a legislative agenda of “meaningful solutions” (Frist 2005). The Republicans gamble in some ways by tying the fate of their entire agenda to Social Security (the first of their ten bills); however, if their push for Social Security reform is successful, it might provide momentum for other larger policy goals. Whatever happens in the coming weeks and months, Social Security promises to be a front page issue, and realistically one of the major policy clashes of President Bush’s second term.