Are Democrats who Propose Cuts to Social Security “Stupid” or Just Doing Risk-Analysis?

[antigop]

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/02/gaius-publius-democrats-propose-cuts-social-security-stupid-just-risk-analysis.html

Which brings us to why the Rubins and the Clintons and the Obamas — and whoever is financing campaigns for the Alex Sinks of the world — are apparently willing to look “stupid” to make these destructive neoliberal, unpopular, anti-populist proposals. If I’m Robert Rubin or someone in his position (there are many), I’d figure it like this:

If the Republicans offer “free markets” and racism, and I offer “free markets” and far friendlier social politics, I can still win the White House most of the time. (The White House is where the power and money are, money I can dole out to my friends via gifts and appointments.)

So whenever someone in my base says, “But wait … I don’t want the billionaires and bankers to win and skate free. I don’t want bailouts and “free trade” agreements. I don’t want benefit cuts. Also, jobs!” — I immediately reply, “Really? So you want Chris Christie? Mitt Romney? Rush Limbaugh to run the country? You just had Bush because you messed up and weren’t loyal enough.”

“Line up, son, or take the blame,” they say. And they mean it. And in fact, most do line up; daughters and sons alike. Some do not, of course, and some just stay home, bored and sick with the lack of real choice. Sure that diminishes the Democratic vote total, but if they win the White House by +3% instead of +10%, so what? They still win.

....

So that’s the calculation, and it’s based on, yes, triangulation and the squeeze play. They triangulate and the base gets squeezed. True, there’s a slightly greater risk of losing the White House than if they propose truly progressive, truly popular policies. But there’s no price to them personally for losing, and they’ll win most of the time anyway, especially in this era of shifting demographics. It’s a relatively low-risk, high-reward strategy, based on this calculation.If the Republicans offer “free markets” and racism, and I offer “free markets” and far friendlier social politics, I can still win the White House most of the time. (The White House is where the power and money are, money I can dole out to my friends via gifts and appointments.)

[grahamhgreen]

1. Neither. They are Republicans.

Any cuts or suggestion of cuts to SS by a Dem only helps the Republican Party.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Beat me to it.

Democrats should be advocating lowering the retirement age, the Medicare eligibility age, and increasing benefits.

[Doctor_J]

4. Yep. Moles

Maybe we should face facts. The president (together with others mentioned in the article) has embraced Heritage/Gingrinch/Romneycare, drone murder, "Clean Coal", KXL, TPP, Race To The Bottom, charter schools vs. public schools, and SS/Medicare benefit cuts. What do these things have in common? They're all Republican ideas.

[Enthusiast]

3. Dino. Democrat in name only.

Third Way, DLC. They come in a variety of names, mostly designed to hide their true identity.

[bemildred]

5. Whatever. What is clear is that they are not progressives.

Speculating about their motives and how they rationalize their deceptions to themselves is just entertainment.

[grahamhgreen]

6. Perhaps, if one finds starving grandma entertaining!

[bemildred]

7. Yes, of course, that's it. nt

[yurbud]

8. This is how the game moves continuously to the right

[antigop]

9. Yep. nt