Framing Social Security

Steve Soto links to linguist George Lakoff's take on Bush's inagural address. Lakoff also has some sage words to say about framing Social Security:

Democrats must come up with a set of values to explain why they feel that, say, Americans shouldn't be able to invest their Social Security funds in the stock market, Lakoff said. And the rhetorical battle will probably come back to the concept of "freedom."

"When Republicans talk about Social Security, they talk about freedom," Lakoff said. " 'You can invest your money better than the government can.' "The Democrats respond by giving all the facts and figures," he said. "None of them say, 'This is an issue about whether we're going to have a guaranteed annuity for everyone in our family, the American family, or whether you're on your own, buddy.' "Rather, they argue the details," Lakoff said. "As soon as progressives argue the details, conservatives come back and argue their own details, and nobody knows the difference. And as soon as you get into the technical details, the liberals lose. Because the other guys are arguing values." (emphasis mine)

I've been guilty of this myself, so from now on I'll always try to note the most imporant thing about Social Security: it is a guaranteed annuity. There's no guess-work or gambling on how long you'll live, or how well your investments will do. As long as you're kicking, Social Security will be there for you.