Still sounds pretty utopian to me. After all, before Social Security, people hadn't had a taste of what responsible democratic government could do for people. That can't be said anymore.

Sorry, Karl. You can visit mom and dad, but you can't go home again.

Republicans are the undead.

Any ray of humanity is deadly to them.

And Quisling Joe is a familiar.

But it wasn't exactly like that. The country was Republican, but the Republicans themselves were very, very split between the TR progressives who wanted to use government very actively in the cause of reform, and the party regulars who were reeling from TR's presidency. The mood of the country was reformist, active, progressive. In the 1912 election, 76% of the vote went for a progressive candidate--TR, Debs or Wilson.

After World War I when the country did turn conservative, the Republicans still had problems undoing previously passed progressive legislation. And they were able to maintain their severely pro-business policies because peace and prosperity complemented the mood of indifference to politics.

I never could figure out why Rove looks to this era. TR's adventures overseas turned into debacles, and by 1904 he was in fact if not in theory or talk through with imperialism. And the foreign and domestic policies of the Republicans led pretty directly to Worldwide Depression and another World War.

And, McKinley made the Republican party acceptable to workers by steering it away from its moralizing wings--the Repubs led with their pro-business face, not their Prohibition face.

I forgot to add, in my disagreement of the portrayal of the first decades of the 20th century, that many of the states were pushing through very progressive programs. And New York was a veritable test tube for later New Deal programs.

Hmmmm. I tend to disagree with Schmitt. I agree with the posters above -- once the genie's out of the bottle, it's really, really tough to put it back in again.

I do agree that this is what they would like to do. I just don't see how this can happen.

People simply won't stand for the old being pushed out on the street -- which is what was happening before the New Deal. I've seen this in my own very Republican family. No one wants to take their oldest relatives in -- they view this as the state's responsibility.

When push comes to shove, people will support higher taxes to shore up Social Security. It's dumb for the Republicans to force this issue.

Good post. Good points made, Raenelle. Agree with your comments and agree that Schmitt made errors.

I'm not saying that Rove is correctly interpreting history, or that this is what in fact will happen if SS is phased out. Rather, Schmitt gets to the very essence of what motivates the Republicans in this battle, no matter how hare-brained it may appear to us.

Yuval - agree. They could never sell destroying Social Security directly -- they've been trying to do so since its inception. It has taken them over seventy years to craft a sales pitch that appeals to greed. Social Security is now not an insurance-annuity but an "investment." And greedy people always think they can do better managing their own money. Particularly, when the GOP presentation excludes brokers' and management fees and ignores all the years when the stock market grew slowly. The cost of running Social Security doesn't even begin to compare with that of private accounts -- SS is cheap.

A key reason why the GOP (Party of business) has long sought to destroy SS is the employers' contribution. They don't give a shit what workers are willing to contribute from their wages, only what employers have to cough up.

Schmitt has it about right as to how people will respond to this. The return to the 19th Century will not happen over night, but it will be gradual. Old folks will remain quiet because they will still be getting their guvment checks and the young will have a false sense of security from their investment account statements that they will view as "my money." The Fed will keep borrowing money to prop up this illusion. Then when it crashes someday, they will have forgotten what it had been like before. Look at how fast GWB/Cheney have erased a national memory of relative peace and prosperity of the 1990's. They'll rationalize the crash on some external event (not anything that the government and people of America contributed to) and the people in this country will accept a new and harsher reality. Mostly because we've become soft and selfish.

Who was it that said "Republicans say government doesn't work and then get elected to prove it." ? I think that sums it up pretty well.

Excellent post. Good recounting of history Raenelle, not to brag but I couldn't have done it better. The reason we're even here, to put it bluntly, is the passing of the GI generation.
The children of the 1930's were provided for by the New Deal. The business community had been chastened by the stock market crash and having had to experence the depression with everyone else was open to co-operation with the government. The well fed and educated youngsters of the New Deal era were the backbone and muscle that largely broke fascism in the 1940's. After the war they created the culture that we still enjoy many of the fruits of today, such as the interstate highway system.

The GI's understood the nature of a social contract. The New Deal took care of them and they grew up to take care of America. They were a public regarding generation who understood that the foundation of a culture is only as strong as the people who make up the culture. They understood that if the government and business planned the future together the shiny high tech 'Jetsons' type world many of us children and grandchildren of the GI's grew up seeing on TV might be possible.

By the Vietman War era government solutions to problems began to look less promising and scince then we have shifted to a private regarding culture. Those who look at it positivily call it a post-materalistic culture. The 'me' generation mentality isn't a product of failure but of success. Never having experenced the want and fear of the depression the boomers were able to take material abundance for granted sufficently that the political activism first in the 30's for labor rights than post-war for civil rights become just the products of spiecal interest groups from the past.

Today we see the chaos that ensues when the private market is allowed to make decisions without being held accountable by the government. On a lower open thread Mary has a link that shows the fruits of these policy choices. Almost everyday we speculate 'how long can this last?' and 'will America wake up before we have some kind of crash?'

Some believe, including me that the best hope lies in today's huge 'echo boom' generation. They range in age from about 15 to 30 and are already numerically larger then their parents boomer generation, a gap that will widen with time.
Their first political memory is of Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal, many of them recall the Clinton 90's as a carefree and prosperous teen age period and are now facing a young adulthood bleakened by continuous war and economic decline under Bush II. Small wonder that they are the only voting group (by age) in 2004 that went for Kerry.

Rove knows this and he knows that if he can scare the echo boom away from the Democrats with lies about Social Security the idea of a long term Republican majority becomes possible. Even better for him would be if spineless Joe and a few other so-called moderates threw away Social Security and showed the echo boom that when crunch time comes the Dems. will bail. This would also open the door for a draft and completion of the rest of the current GOP agenda. If the Dems. won't fight for the program that they have stood for more than anything else, then they don't stand for anything at all.

Liberalism was known in the GI heyday as a fighting faith and if the the Democrats fight a fight they can win today, other fights and later elections become winnable tomorrow. Regaining control of the federal government and securing national healthcare for all Americans, including the echo boom who enter the workforce less likely to have health insurance than older generations, can happen if the party shows its proud tradition of fighting for the people. Let us honor our GI forebears and secure the future for the echo boom and the generations to come.

Republicans all believe in Santa and that after the great economic shakeout they will be the ones with all the money.

Wasn't there a book some years ago that followed the children and grandchildren of the Okies into California and found that they had mostly turned into wingnuts? Has anyone really studied the children and grandchildren of the GI-bill to see where they are? (Extrapolating from the ones I know, I'd say they are mostly anti-government libertarians or repubs, but are there any data?)

bob brinker was on kgo tonight in the 8:00 hour discussing social security and medicare. arcives up at kgo.com.

sorry 4 grammer. on pda.

whl gnrtn f mlksps cn't mstr th whrwthl t mk d wtht m chck.

agree w/ Marie-
the goal is not the 6 1/4% that employees put in so much as the 6 1/4% that employers put in.
As soon as 2-4% of the employee contribution is phased out the employers will start whining about why should they have to put in more than the worker: plus, with the subtraction of the employee amount the SS solvency problems become more pronounced and the calls to overhaul it entirely will fall on more welcome eras...
remember, they don't give a damn about the workers;
this is about business and the employer class.

Rip, great post. Without the fig leaf that idiot Loserman can provide, shrub's Social Security phase out plan is dead.

...shrub's Social Security phase out plan is dead.

Would be careful about declaring victory against the GOP and GWB. In early 2002 it appeared that invading Iraq was a non-starter. If the GOP doesn't get anything out of this round in their SS attack, they will go back and retool it and come out swinging again. Just say "No" to GWB doesn't work -- he has a lifetime of experience of getting his way and "No" has never stopped him.

O.K. Bendito don't use the interstate highway system those old 'milksops' designed and built. Don't go to the public colleges they built and taught at either and if you get hurt don't even think of applying for Social Security disability. You aren't worthy to clean the urine pan an old G.I. war veteran may need.

ending the guaranteed bene. yes. that is exactly what they want. and they're not just looking at SS privatization as a way to do it. this is part of a larger effort. it won't end when ss privatization debate is over. so, eternal vigilance.

I heard a pundit from the urban institute on cspan arguing for exactly that - the end of the guaranteed benefit - as the ONLY solution to the budgetary crisis. it was typical strong-father stuff - the taxpayers are being 'treated like children' because they have so little discretion over these 'entitlement' programs. The only way to empower them, of course, is to do away with a guaranteed benefit level for anyone, which will of course kill these programs.

if they can't do it through SS privatization, they'll try to find another way to destroy it.

eternal vigilance.