An important political maneuver conservatives used was not pushing for Social Security cuts per se but instead privatization. Beyond leaving it to 'markets' to do the cuts, it meant that centrist liberals embraced the position of cuts + revenues alone. /1
It showed they weren't up for the ideological battle. Obama-era officials were genuinely confused why conservatives wouldn't take this-or-that deal, not understanding it was the public-ness of Social Security and Medicare they wanted to end, not some formula or ratio. /2
In Obama-era this disconnect was clearest with Senator Wyden's adventures with Paul Ryan in, ahem, "premium support" (i.e. privatizing Medicare). Wyden thought 'responsible-adult-market-deficit' stuff while Ryan dreamed of drowning the leviathan. /3 washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2…
But it's left a lot of liberal centrists confused - hey, we're not the conservatives! We want cuts and revenue, not cuts alone or privatization! Not realizing that the privatization stuff is fever dreams of conservative donors, unrelated to actual people who want expansions. /4
I'm curious when this all changed. I think Warren in 2013 really started it (see link), Sanders amplified it in 2016. Either way, the line, which was the correct one, is that Social Security works and should be expanded. /5 washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-lin…
Last, I know to start the current Left energy with Occupy and the 1%. But a prologue should include the opposition to Bush's Social Security privatization in 2005. It's remembered as a failure now but could have happened, resistance was key there and unlocked something. /fin
