Josh Marshall flags Janet Hook’s article in the Los Angeles Times claiming President Bush ran on a “specific agenda” in 2004:

Many of the assets Bush brings to his second term distinguish him from other two-term presidents. Unlike President Reagan’s broad-brush “Morning in America” campaign for reelection in 1984, for example, Bush ran in 2004 on a specific agenda of new issues, notably overhauling Social Security and the tax code. Some Bush allies say his recent troubles in Congress are a measure of how ambitious his aims are, not how much leverage he has lost.

Marshall replies:

The idea that President Bush ran on a specific agenda that included privatizing Social Security strikes me as little more than preposterous. And I am surprised to see Hook accept it so uncritically.

Yes, he did mention it during the campaign — just enough to allow his supporters to say now that he didn’t spring it on the public without ever having mentioned it before. But when he did mention it, it was almost always in speeches to loyalists and just as a few toss-off lines intended for said loyalists’ eager consumption.

But he didn’t bring it up in ads, in the debates, in any prominent setting. And for good reason. His entire campaign was framed around two planks: strength against terrorism and the flaws of John Kerry.

Josh is right, though he overstates the case a bit. Bush did briefly raise Social Security in some prominent settings, but he did not give any indication that it would be his top legislative priority, nor did he give any specifics on what he would propose (indeed, his “proposal” is still largely undefined). Let’s review the evidence.

The platform

The party platform is the major programmatic document released by a presidential candidate’s party in an election year. While platforms are often long on rhetoric and short on specifics, they give clear indications of the relative emphasis that candidates and parties put on specific issues and proposals. And the evidence is clear that the 2004 Republican platform (PDF) focused heavily on the war on terror. The section “Winning the War on Terror” runs from page 1 to page 38, while the section on Social Security is roughly one page in the next section on “ownership,” which runs all of six pages.

Moreover, when judged from the perspective of today, it is a demonstrably misleading portrayal of the President’s plans. For instance, one bullet point states that “Key changes to Social Security should merit bipartisan agreement,” even though the GOP is trying to push through reform on a partyline basis. Another states that “Today’s financial markets offer a variety of investment options, including some that
guarantee a rate of return higher than the current Social Security system with no risk to
the investor.” This is an suggestion that private acccounts are a free lunch, but as it turns out President Bush’s proposal includes a 3% per year clawback for each dollar invested in a private account, which means that no investments will guarantee a positive return.

The convention speech

President Bush’s speech to the convention — his only nationally-televised address of the campaign — was more than 5,000 words, almost 2,000 of which were devoted to the war in Iraq and the war on terror. Meanwhile, he devoted approximately 100 prefunctory words to Social Security:

In an ownership society, more people will own their health care plans, and have the confidence of owning a piece of their retirement. We’ll always keep the promise of Social Security for our older workers. With the huge Baby Boom generation approaching retirement, many of our children and grandchildren understandably worry whether Social Security will be there when they need it. We must strengthen Social Security by allowing younger workers to save some of their taxes in a personal account — a nest egg you can call your own, and government can never take away.

The debates

During the debates, which focused heavily on foreign policy (it was the sole subject of the first debate), Social Security only came up twice. Vice President Cheney offered this sentence about it during his debate with John Edwards: “We’ll do everything we can to preserve Social Security and to make certain that it’s there for future generations.” And President Bush discussed the issue during his third debate with Senator John Kerry, but he only did so because moderator Bob Schieffer asked him a question about it. Here is what Bush said — it was, as always, exceptionally general:

First, let me make sure that every senior listening today understands that when we’re talking about reforming Social Security, that they’ll still get their checks.

I remember the 2000 campaign, people said if George W. gets elected, your check will be taken away. Well, people got their checks, and they’ll continue to get their checks.

There is a problem for our youngsters, a real problem. And if we don’t act today, the problem will be valued in the trillions. And so I think we need to think differently. We’ll honor our commitment to our seniors. But for our children and our grandchildren, we need to have a different strategy.

And recognizing that, I called together a group of our fellow citizens to study the issue. It was a committee chaired by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, a Democrat. And they came up with a variety of ideas for people to look at.

I believe that younger workers ought to be allowed to take some of their own money and put it in a personal savings account, because I understand that they need to get better rates of return than the rates of return being given in the current Social Security trust.

And the compounding rate of interest effect will make it more likely that the Social Security system is solvent for our children and our grandchildren. I will work with Republicans and Democrats. It’ll be a vital issue in my second term. It is an issue that I am willing to take on, and so I’ll bring Republicans and Democrats together.

And we’re of course going to have to consider the costs. But I want to warn my fellow citizens: The cost of doing nothing, the cost of saying the current system is OK, far exceeds the costs of trying to make sure we save the system for our children.

The campaign website

Finally, GeorgeWBush.com was the definitive archive of Bush’s “Agenda for America” — the official set of policy positions for the campaign. The Internet Archive’s copy of the website on Election Day 2004 shows that the campaign’s security/foreign policy platform was long and detailed, while the campaign’s statement about Social Security (buried under a section on home ownership) consisted of the following bromides:

Social Security represents a solemn commitment to the American people. To keep that commitment, we must fix Social Security permanently for our children and grandchildren. Fifty years ago there were sixteen workers paying into Social Security for every person receiving benefits. Today, there are just 3.3 workers for each person on Social Security. Without principled leadership, sound policies, and courageous action, Social Security will be unable to pay the benefits promised to our children and grandchildren without enormous payroll tax increases.

The President understands that Social Security must be fixed, and workers deserve to own part of their Social Security benefits and to build a nest egg for retirement. He has put forward clear principles to strengthen Social Security permanently:

-No Changes in Benefits For Current Retirees and Near-Retirees – For those already in or near retirement, promises made must be promises kept.
-Voluntary Personal Retirement Accounts for Younger Workers – These personal accounts would give workers ownership, control, and the opportunity to use their Social Security payroll taxes to build a nest egg for retirement that can be passed on to their families.
-No Increases in the Social Security Payroll Tax – The President has stated that we cannot tax our way to fixing Social Security.

And that’s it. Not exactly a “specific agenda.” The evidence clearly suggests that President Bush de-emphasized his position on Social Security in favor of using the war on terror and gay marriage as wedge issues. Yet he has claimed a “mandate” on the basis of his narrow victory and tried to use it to press for private accounts — an obvious bait-and-switch enabled by the coverage of muddle-headed reporters like Hook.