Perry's Goldwater Gambit

Over at Contentions, John Podhoretz says that “Perry’s handling of the [Social Security] question was crude last night.” However, he adds,

Perry’s critics are foolish -- including Mitt Romney’s team -- to imagine that a candidate who says Social Security is unsustainable in its current configuration -- and that it needs to be changed if today’s 25 year-olds are to receive any kind of benefit -- has traveled beyond the pale.

But of course, Mitt Romney didn’t say that in last night’s debate. In fact, he said the exact opposite of what Podhoretz alleges.

Romney agreed that Social Security funding is broken and needs to be fixed. He disagreed, though, with Perry’s characterization of Social Security as a failed program, which states ought to be able to opt out of if they so choose.

“You can't say that to tens of millions of Americans who live on Social Security and those who have lived on it,” Romney explained.

Romney is certainly right politically. In 1964, Barry Goldwater talked about making Social Security voluntary, and he lost badly as a result. In 1980, Reagan didn’t repeat Goldwater’s mistake and he won in a landslide.

I think there’s been a tendency amongst many conservatives to rally around Perry because he's dared to address the “third rail of American politics”: Social Security. I respect Perry’s willingness to address this important issue, but not the politically cavalier, dangerous and slipshod way in which he has broached the subject.

As Philip Klein explained in an aptly titled piece, “Conservatives should keep Perry at arm’s length.”

On many occasions, conservatives have made the mistake of thinking that anybody who drives the left crazy must be ‘one of us.’ This mistake was particularly damaging during the Bush era, when conservatives offered only token opposition when it came to big government policies like No Child Left Behind and the Medicare prescription drug plan.

Just because the Left is salivating at the prospect of taking on Rick Perry doesn’t mean that Perry is “one of us.” It doesn’t mean that he’d make a good presidential candidate. And, most importantly, it doesn’t mean that he could win a general election race and then govern effectively.

John Guardiano blogs at strong>www.ResoluteCon.Com<, and you can follow him on Twitter: strong>@JohnRGuardiano<.