Party Like It's 1994

In the latest (Jan. 24-31) issue of New York, John Heilemann writes about how the Social Security battle is shaping up to do for the Dems what the health-care battle did for the GOP in 1993:

"In early December, William Kristol went up to Cambridge to deliver the Theodore H. White Lecture at the Kennedy School of Government -- a stem-winder on, what else, “The Meaning of the 2004 Election.” After an hour of talking mainly about the GOP, Kristol was asked in a Q&A to assess the Democrats’ current predicament. In his dry, wry, mordant way, Kristol pointed out that the Republicans had been in similar, and arguably worse, straits in 1993 and 1994—until the epochal battle over the Clinton health-care plan catapulted the party into control of both houses of Congress. Then, quietly, Kristol added, “If I were a Democrat today, I’d be looking at Social Security.”

...

"To any Republican with a sense of history (let alone irony), the possibility that Social Security ’05 could be a replay of health care ’94 (with the partisan polarities reversed) looks all too real, and scary as hell. To Democrats, however, it is, and should be, an opportunity to get up off the mat."

It's really worth a read. He points out the many similarities between the Dems of 05 and the GOP of 93/94 -- they are completely out of power, facing a president who thinks he's got more popular support than he really does, a president who's dead-set on an epochal reform that will make or break his presidency. There are some other similarities, but those are enough for starters. Heilemann suggests that, if Dems can show the kind of backbone the GOP showed in 93/94, they can turn the tables of power, as the GOP did back then.

But he also points out some of the differences in the two situations. For one thing, obviously, Bush is beginning his second term, while Clinton was beginning his first. That actually could work to Bush's disadvantage, since many of the people he needs to help him are up for reelection, while he is not. On the other hand, another big difference between the two situations is the fact that the Dems haven't been out of power all that long, while the GOP had by 1993 been in the wilderness for decades. They were hungry, disciplined and had a charismatic leader in Newt Gingrich. Heilemann points out that the Dems have no Newt Gingrich of their own, now, but suggests that perhaps Rahm Emanuel could be one.

Given what Josh Marshall has said about Rahm Emanuel, I'm not so sure about that.

But I do see the Dems as being amazingly disciplined (so far) on this point, perhaps enough that they don't really need a charismatic leader. And they certainly have the intellectual muscle (Bob Rubin, Orszag, others) and grassroots support (BlogPAC and its affiliates) behind them. The only question now is, how far will Bush push this issue? Will he push it far enough that it does him damage, or will somebody talk sense into him before that point?

Also, what is Bill Kristol doing giving pointers to the Dems? Heilemann points out that Kristol is against Bush on this issue and suggests he has some Machiavellian reason for that. What could it be, I wonder? Did Bush snub him somehow? Is he nostalgic for the days when the Republicans were an opposition party? Should be interesting to watch.