Chickens. Home. Roost

During the Bush campaign there was very little mention of Social Security PRIVATIZATION (oh, I forgot, the leadership of Oceania has instructed us not to use that word, but rather refer to "personal accounts"). There was a great deal of talk about the "sanctity of [heterosexual] marriage." There were even hints that the great Republican majority would propose a Constitutional Amendment banning ickiness.

Now, with a Man Date behind him [heh, heh], Dear Leader has been backing away from supporting a marriage amendment, and instead is focused, laser-like, on PRIVATIZATION. He still supports the idea, he says, but political realities are, you know, what they are. Even Rick "the Beast" Santorum is sounding pragmatic on the issue these days.

Well, the radical clerics who Rove raised to new prominence during the campaign are pissed, and have decided to use support for Social Security PRIVATIZATION as the cudgel to push Republicans into coming through on the promises they hinted at last Fall.

In a confidential letter to Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, the group said it was disappointed with the White House's decision to put Social Security and other economic issues ahead of its paramount interest: opposition to same-sex marriage.

The letter, dated Jan. 18, pointed out that many social conservatives who voted for Mr. Bush because of his stance on social issues lack equivalent enthusiasm for changing the retirement system or other tax issues. And to pass to pass any sweeping changes, members of the group argue, Mr. Bush will need the support of every element of his coalition.

"We couldn't help but notice the contrast between how the president is approaching the difficult issue of Social Security privatization [emphasis added] where the public is deeply divided and the marriage issue where public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side," the letter said. "Is he prepared to spend significant political capital on privatization but reluctant to devote the same energy to preserving traditional marriage? If so it would create outrage with countless voters who stood with him just a few weeks ago, including an unprecedented number of African-Americans, Latinos and Catholics who broke with tradition and supported the president solely because of this issue."

The letter continued, "When the administration adopts a defeatist attitude on an issue that is at the top of our agenda, it becomes impossible for us to unite our movement on an issue such as Social Security privatization where there are already deep misgivings."

[...]

The members of the coalition that wrote the letter are some of Mr. Bush's most influential conservative Christian supporters, and include Dr. James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, the Southern Baptist Convention, the American Family Association, Jerry Falwell and Paul Weyrich.

Several members of the group said that not long ago, many of their supporters were working or middle class, members of families that felt more allegiance to the Democratic Party because of programs like Social Security before gravitating to the Republican Party as it took up more cultural conservative issues over the last 20 years.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, declined to talk about the letter, but said, "The enthusiasm to get behind his proposals is going to require that he get behind the issues that really motivated social conservative voters."

Asked to estimate the level of discontent with the White House among the group on a scale from one to 10, Mr. Perkins put it at 8.

I guess the radical clerics didn't get the memo to stop saying "PRIVATIZATION." It will be interesting to watch, in the weeks ahead, as Republicans propose a "traditional marriage" amendment in the Senate -- despite the certainty of its defeat -- and the radical clerics come out in support of "private accounts." Jesus, as we learned in Paul's Letter to the Cato Institute, was determined to take up the cause of PRIVATIZATION before his untimely death.