Over the weekend, supporters of Social Security saw a troubling lead in an article by Glenn Johnson of The Associated Press.

“House Democrats,” Johnson wrote, “have decided to quit emphasizing that they will not negotiate changes to Social Security until President Bush drops his idea for private accounts. The switch in strategy comes after Democrats learned from focus groups that people frown on the lawmakers for being obstinate.”

How much of what’s wrong with Washington Democrats is summed up in those two painful sentences?

It is worth taking a moment to marvel at just how the Democrats can manage to get themselves tagged with obstinacy when they are opposing a president who continues to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to push an increasingly unpopular proposal to phase out what is arguably America’s most popular government program.

And if the puff of white smoke really has billowed up the chimney stack of some infallible focus group, may I suggest a touch more message discipline to ensure that the wire stories run the message rather than the fact that the party has changed its message because of something it has heard in a focus group.

“Obstinacy” is really just determination devoid of principled and compelling beliefs. And how better to show voters you don’t have any than by shifting on a dime because of what you heard in the latest focus group?

All smart-alecking aside, here’s a modest proposal for congressional Democrats.

On Social Security, ditch the focus groups. Stop brainstorming about tactics. And even forget about this or that medium- or long-term strategy.

Take a deep breath. Count to 10. And then ask this question:

What is the actual policy outcome that would be most preferable on Social Security, and how important is it that the outcome take place in the 109th Congress?

That should be the first, second and third question. And the answer should drive everything else.

If add-on accounts are important to preserve Social Security or expand opportunities for middle-class families, and if it’s important enough on the merits to make it a priority in this Congress, then do it.

Otherwise, forget it. Stick with opposing President Bush’s plan to phase out Social Security and take that to the voters next year. End of story.

Don’t get me wrong. I know that there are always plenty of true believers on both sides of the aisle who can be relied upon to support principle over pragmatism, purity over results on every question. But that’s not the point I’m making.

I’m not saying that the Democrats need to get in touch with their political or ideological roots or hold to old orthodoxies. My point is entirely agnostic on what the policy should be — only that right now the policy should drive the politics.

Look over what’s happened over the past year and you’ll see that most of the Democrats’ problems stemmed from the fact that they’ve had the order reversed.

Democrats need to realize that their problem is not deficiencies in their tactics and strategies so much as their overemphasis on political gamesmanship and clever tactics in general.

That overreliance has had two deeply damaging effects.

It’s signaled a general inconstancy and unseriousness to voters. And it has sown confusion among Democrats themselves about the values and goals underlying the policy positions they support — something that engenders a vicious circle of muddled messages and feckless politics.

The success Democrats have had so far in the Social Security debate should serve as an instructive counterexample. By and large, Democrats didn’t take the advice of their marquee strategists and pollsters.

That advice held that (a) it would be close to impossible to overcome the public assumption that Bush was right that Social Security faced a “crisis” and (b) Democrats should try to split the difference or co-opt the enthusiasm for private accounts by supporting a plan with accounts that are added on to Social Security rather than carved out of it.

Instead, Democrats framed a message pretty closely on their actual substantive position. That is, that Social Security isn’t an investment plan but social insurance. Private accounts defeat that purpose and introduce too much risk.

So a move to replace Social Security, in whole or in part, with private accounts is something Democrats will always oppose.

That’s clear. It puts the emphasis on the policies and values Democrats support. And it’s honest with voters. Needless to say, it has also forced the Republicans to bite the bullet and phase out Social Security all by themselves — something they’re clearly unwilling to do.

So for all those Democrats who are biting their nails, worrying about the next twist in the Social Security debate, how about sticking with what’s worked so far?

Think through what you believe and which policies you really think are best. Tell the voters. Stick to it. And let the chips fall where they may.

Marshall is editor of talkingpointsmemo.com. His column appears in The Hill each week.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it