In prior comments I indicated that I believe there's merit in the analysis that Bush may indeed win strategically even if he loses on Social Security per se. (Caveat, he can't be seen to lose too early or his lame duck problem erodes much of his ability to use Social Security to frame the Democrats the way he wants.)

I was especially interested in the polling results reported by Zogby today re a powerful cross-cutting theme of "ownership" as a driver of voting behavior. My agreement with the Zogby analysis isn't to suggest that the opponents of the Bush attack on Social Security should "compromise." As I indicated, I am totally in accord with Publius' sentiments that there's nothing to compromise.

But the "ownership" theme speaks to the desire of people to be independent, not dependent; to earn what they get, not to think iin terms of "entitlements." At the same time, there's a very real anxiety due to increased economic insecurity.

The problem as I see it is that neither party is talking about policies that address this combination of factors. They are treating them as in opposition, when they should be approached as the main feature of the new political-economic landscape that must be addressed together.

Bush et al are rhetorically addressing the "ownership" values and are feeding anxieties through the national security and cultural issues. They "win" by keeping ownership and insecurity in tension with each other.

It's fine to demonstrate that the Bush "ownership" proposals are nothing of the sort. But ultimately, the issues Zogby uncovers must be addressed not just rhetorically but in affirmative policies. To that extent, the critique that "no" is fatal for the Democrats long-term is absolutely correct.

The response the Democrats have to come up with -- and there's plenty of it in the think tanks, it's just not moving into political discourse -- is to embrace ownership while addressing insecurities. That needs to be done in a much broader framework of challenging the entire employer-based benefits model, which is a growing disaster for both employers (especially those in international competition) and US workers, as well as getting away from tax-based mechanisms for the bulk of the ownership-related benefits.

A big discussion for another day.

I hadn't read Mark Schmitt's excellent piece on Opportunity & Security before these comments. But it's quite similar to what I'm advocating, and much more developed in terms of policy specifics.

I don't, however, think he goes far enough. He's still looking at everything from the individual voter, and how to expand the Democratic base of voters. I'm advocatiing a broader rethink that looks at things equally from the business point of view. The business sector in the US has bought onto the Bush/GOP agenda from a power standpoint, but not necessarily from a "what's good for business" standpoint. A great number of Bush-DeLay agenda items are pet issues of narrow business constituencies that are cobbled together through various business lobbies in order to hold their access power. How much of American business was truly helped by the recent bankruptcy bill? How many are helped by privatizing Social Security? How many are helped by aggressive measure against unions. By cutting Medicaid, by "tort reform," or ANWAR drilling, and so forth. These various measures, which whittle away at the middle class or fail to address widely shared concerns, may benefit one business group or another. But they don't benefit business as a whole, which has a much larger interest in a prosperous worker/consumer base.

The two parallel themes -- which should be mutually supporting not in opposition -- "opportunity/ownership" and "security" should resonate with business as well as individuals.

There's an interesting article by Stirling Newberry on what is really going on with the Social Security push.

I have no clue whether the theory expounded is true or not, but it's a take I hadn't seen before.

Nothing on this theory? Is that because you consider the theory loopy?

Sounds too conspiracy-oriented for me.