A Strong Conservative Mandate? - Möglichkeiten und Grenzen konservativer Politik am Beispiel der Reformdebatte um Social Security während des 109th United States Congress

Abstract

The successes and setbacks of the Tea Party movement in American national politics over the last few years raise the question under which conditions it is possible to enact conservative policies on the national level in the United States. To answer that question, the thesis analyzes President George W. Bush's attempt to reform Social Security. Immediately after his reelection in 2004 he proposed partially privatizing the old-age insurance portion of the program, but the reform failed in the 109th U.S. Congress. The plans for reform were spurred by projections that starting in 2018 the Social Security program will have to payout more through benefits than it will earn through taxes, due to demographic change. A (partial) privatization of the Social Security program would have been a far reaching and symbolic reform, also advancing conservative policy goals. Not only is Social Security a fundamental part of American social policy, it also is special, given the fact that it is a government run program in a system based in huge parts on private insurance. Since its introduction during the New Deal era Social Security has been a prime example of paternalism for many conservatives. In their opinion the program should be abolished and replaced by private insurance. Despite conservative criticism Social Security has constantly grown over the decades, and not only do liberals vehemently defend it, it is also seen positively by a majority of the American people. Central to the question of whether conservative policies can be enacted is the fact that modern American conservatism is based on a coalition of different groups. Its domestic policy is shaped by libertarian and social conservative ideals. The conservative factions share, among other things, a rejection of modern American liberalism. But while they have a lot of things in common, there is room for conflict between the primary concerns of the different conservative groups. The thesis utilizes John W. Kingdon's multiple streams theory for the analysis of the reform debate. According to the model, a successful reform would have needed positive developments in three different streams – the problem stream, the policy stream and the politics stream – at the same time. Only in that case an opportunity window for a reform would have existed. The analysis shows, that at the time of the push for Social Security reform in none of the streams the conditions were entirely positive for reform, which means an opportunity window was not open. While there was an awareness in the general public of the problems Social Security faces, there was disagreement about their severity and the urgency needed to find a solution for them. Huge ideological differences existed between American conservatives and liberals about the size of the problems and about the function and form of social policy in general. With regard to the reform itself, there was skepticism that the proposed introduction of private accounts would solve the problem. For example, experts criticized the transition costs and were questioning whether the private accounts could provide the returns projected by the White House. The general public was also skeptical of the reform proposal. Even within the Republican constituency there was no clear majority for the reform, especially retirees – an important bloc of voters for Republicans – opposed a partial privatization and social conservative voters were driven more by social issues. Without a unified position on the reform within the Republican caucuses in the House of Representatives and in the Senate and with the threat of a filibuster by the Democratic minority in the Senate, the Republican majorities in both houses of the 109th U.S. Congress were not large enough to pass the reform. Apart from the difficult conditions within the streams, the White House also made errors while trying to couple them. The biggest mistake was the lack of coordination with interest groups and especially with the Congress. The failed Social Security reform shows that conservatism in the United States is a coalition of different interests. To bring those together and to make sure they prevail, there have to be debates and compromises, both within the conservative coalition and with the non-conservative political actors outside of it.