Welcome to the spin politics of the 21st century. The debate over Social Security has already devolved into a battle over whether President Bush is advocating “private accounts” or not.

Mike Allen’s story from Sunday’s Washington Post sets the scene:

As the two parties brace for the coming debate over restructuring Social Security, polls and focus groups for both sides have shown that voters — especially older ones, who vote in disproportionately heavy numbers — distrust any change that has the word “private” attached to it.

The White House has a logical idea: Don’t use the word. This is difficult because, after all, they would be “private” accounts, and Bush’s plan would “partially privatize” Social Security.

So Bush and his supporters have started using “personal accounts” instead of “private accounts” to refer to his plan to let younger workers invest part of their payroll taxes in stocks and bonds. Republican officials have begun calling journalists to complain about references to “private accounts,” even though Bush called them that three times in a speech last fall.

In fact, most conservatives talked about “privatization” and “partial privatization” until a 2002 NRCC memo (PDF) put out word that the term is politically damaging. Now they’re on to stripping the term “private accounts” out of the language for the same reason even though it was a commonly accepted term used by both sides of the debate until only a few months ago. Suddenly, private account advocates like GOP pollster Frank Luntz are claiming that the term is pejorative and reporters shouldn’t use it now that President Bush and other Republicans have stopped doing so (MP3 audio). Even the President tried to mau-mau the Washington Post during a recent interview:

The Post: Will you talk to Senate Democrats about your privatization plan?

THE PRESIDENT: You mean, the personal savings accounts?

The Post: Yes, exactly. Scott has been —

THE PRESIDENT: We don’t want to be editorializing, at least in the questions.

The Post: You used partial privatization yourself last year, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes?

The Post: Yes, three times in one sentence. We had to figure this out, because we’re in an argument with the RNC [Republican National Committee] about how we should actually word this. [Post staff writer] Mike Allen, the industrious Mike Allen, found it.

THE PRESIDENT: Allen did what now?

The Post: You used partial privatization.

THE PRESIDENT: I did, personally?

The Post: Right.

THE PRESIDENT: When?

The Post: To describe it.

THE PRESIDENT: When, when was it?

The Post: Mike said it was right around the election.

THE PRESIDENT: Seriously?

The Post: It was right around the election. We’ll send it over.

THE PRESIDENT: I’m surprised. Maybe I did. It’s amazing what happens when you’re tired. Anyway, your question was? I’m sorry for interrupting.

The campaign has been immediately successful in a matter of days, with the AP, Post and Times all starting to use other terminology like “individual accounts.”

What’s even worse is that others are already suggesting that the term is not pejorative, but somehow inaccurate:

“Semantics are very important,” House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.)said last week when a reporter asked about “private” accounts. “They’re personal accounts, not private accounts. No one is advocating privatizing Social Security.”

“Don’t dismiss the use of a word,” Thomas added. “The use of a word is critical in making law.”

Thomas was playing this same game back on April 20, 2002, when he was interviewed by Bob Novak on CNN’s “Evans, Novak, Hunt and Shields”:

NOVAK: Chairman Bill Thomas, we have a commission appointed by President Bush which has proposed a very ingenious approach to Social Security, with private retirement accounts. The chairman of the Republican Campaign Committee, Tom Davis, doesn’t want to see that on the floor. We had the majority leader Dick Armey here, says he doesn’t want to see it on the floor. But you — are you saying that it’s possible that you might force the Republicans to vote on that this year?

THOMAS: Well, I wouldn’t force the Republicans to vote on anything. First of all, no one’s talking about privatizing or private accounts. We are talking about personal accounts. That is, you would still have all the securities that the current Social Security system has…

NOVAK: But they might vote on it?

THOMAS: … but that they would be directed toward individuals.

It’s one thing to not like the term, but for Thomas to say that the accounts in question are not “private accounts” is basically Orwellian.

As Republicans tie themselves up in knots coming up with approved euphemisms for the accounts, we get nonsense like this statement from House Speaker Denny Hastert, which was part of a National Republican Congressional Committee fundraising letter I received in the mail today (881K PDF – see page 2):

The President has endorsed establishing partial personal control of retirement accounts that would preserve Social Security for today’s seniors while allowing younger workers to build wealth by investing part of their Social Security taxes in private investments. Do you support this bold proposal?

So we only get “partial personal control”? Aren’t the accounts supposed to be “under the individual worker’s ownership and control”? And the language appears to suggest that workers have money waiting for them in a Social Security account, which contradicts the conservative talking point that there are no such accounts. Obviously we know what Hastert means, but the NRCC direct mail firm appears to have been so paranoid about avoiding “privatization” and “private accounts” that the sentence turned into a disaster.

Unfortunately, this is where the whole debate over Social Security is going. The more that elites debate semantics rather than the substance of the issue (which almost no one understands), the less they and the public learn. And when PR professionals and politicians twist language, things get even worse. It’s a lose-lose all around — and a sad microcosm of the political debate as a whole.