Political Ramifications of Taking on Social Security

Being the front-runner in a primary election has its drawbacks. Since the only possible direction is down, candidates like Texas Governor Rick Perry must be especially careful to fall in line with the majority on controversial topics, or else face the consequences illustrated so dauntingly by opinion polls. The ongoing Social Security debate can be seen as one such topic. Despite Perry’s strong opinions on the subject, the attacks by fellow GOP presidential candidates have quickly given him something that he is not necessarily accustomed to: bad press.

In the Washington Post article “Mitt Romney campaign seizes on Rick Perry’s Social Security comments after debate,” Philip Rucker introduces the differing political strategies embedded in the approaches to the topic of both the Romney and Perry campaigns. He describes the political tactics of the two campaigns as risk assessments: Perry on the one hand is hoping that the strong rhetoric against Social Security will serve to propel him to the nomination amid the harsh economic environment, and Romney on the other hand is taking the stance that such an argument would render his rival “unelectable.”

Regardless of Governor Perry’s reason for speaking out so harshly against the Social Security program, it is clear that the framing of his argument is leaving him wide open to attacks by other GOP candidates. To say that the program is “a Ponzi scheme” – as Perry has been quoted as saying, and as Romney alludes to in the following clip – is an inflammatory remark. The truth of the statement is politically irrelevant, depending on how pessimistic one’s view of politics is. In other words, one could contend that Perry’s stance on Social Security is damaging enough to rob him of any chance he has at making any improvements to the system in the first place.



Mitt Romney, for sure, takes the safe route, vowing in a bit of framing genius to “save Social Security,” to restore the pocketbooks of all of the individuals who depend on the program for survival. Philip Rucker notes, however, the interesting similarities between Romney’s position on the issue and that of the front-runner, Perry: “Perry and Romney both say they would continue existing benefits for seniors but acknowledge that Social Security is unsustainable and say it needs to be reformed for future generations.” Suddenly, it seems that Perry’s intentions are almost identical to those of his rival. Each candidate not only agrees that the program must be reformed, but also that seniors should certainly not be left to survive without their much needed benefits.

Yet the fact remains that Perry has been quoted, on the record, as saying that Social Security should be likened to a criminal Ponzi scheme, and that it should not be a federal program. It takes little creativity for an opponent to oversimplify his views and claim that he wants ultimately to destroy the social safety net of the United States. However false that statement might be, it could easily change the way citizens view the current front-runner. This swaying of public opinion could likely give Romney the upper hand when it comes time to vote in the primary.