How To Prevent The End Of Social Security

Josh Marshall explains. Step 1: "Next, as we've discussed before, this isn't a debate about 'reform', 'privatization' or 'saving' Social Security. It's about phasing out the Social Security program, or not. Framing it any other way concedes half the battle before the fighting even begins." Duly noted.

He goes on to describe how the Democrats can achieve the parliamentarian unity they'll need if they're going to have a prayer of winning this thing:

The worst thing that can happen for Democrats is that a few of their members of congress get played for fools by signing on to President Bush's plan in the hopes that they can secure some small improvements in the legislation or reflected glory for themselves -- slightly less money carved out of Social Security, bumping up the payroll tax cap, etc. Whatever miniscule benefits could be achieved in such a fashion would be greatly outweighed by the way that it would lessen the chances for fixing the damage after the next election.

The question will be how to enforce discipline at the margins. And here Democrats should take a page from the Republican playbook in 1994 (on health care) and 1998 (on impeachment).

I think Democrats should consider pulling together the major funders of the party, the official committees, the major organizations, basically the entire infrastructure of the Democratic party and making clear to individual members that if they sign on to the president's plan to phase out Social Security, those various institutions and individuals won't fund their campaigns. Not in 2006, not ever.

Similar committments can come from voters, activists and volunteers. And free rein to primary challengers. If a couple folks lose their seats because of underfunding or tough primaries, so be it...

It's that important. And there is an importance to unity on this issue that transcends the particular debate over Social Security.

I'm normally put off by calls for popular-front style solidarity. But it's Marshall's throwaway line at the end the touches on why this is an exceptional case. Social Security is at stake, and that's important; but what's also at stake, and transcendentally important, is the existence or non-existence of organized opposition to the Republican majority.

Now read the rest.