The exchange between Romney and Perry over SS in Wednesday's debate highlights the most important dilemma the Republicans face this cycle: Is it better to commit yourself to being frank about the issues and sticking to ideology, or is it better to soften your position to enhance electability, while negating your ability to fix the problem once you're in? Perry called it a "Ponzi scheme" and wouldn't back down, while Romney attacked him for saying something "inflammatory" on the grounds that it hurts his chances of getting elected. What's the general take on PF?
Conventional wisdom would hold that Romney is the preferable candidate because he appeals to so many people who don't believe in any thing. Perry is unacceptable because of his record on illegal aliens. On this issue above all others there can be no compromise. But Perry is right about Social Security being a Ponzi scheme. Does any one under forty believe SS will be around to help when he or she retires? It won't be. Ponzi schemes work for those who get in early, but fail for the latecomers. That's the same way SS is working out. The problem for Perry is that Americans don't want to be told the truth so that they could prepare for it. For electoral purposes it is best to dissemble and tell the American people what they want to hear. No one wants to be told his or her children are doomed unless immediate painful sacrifices are made.
