In Democracy in Chains by Nancy MacLean, the author discusses how economist James M. Buchanan, a key figure in the development of public choice theory, advocated a “divide and conquer” approach to undermining Social Security. Buchanan, deeply skeptical of government programs like Social Security, viewed them as threats to economic freedom because they involved redistributing wealth through taxation and public spending.
Divide and Conquer Strategy
Buchanan’s strategy was based on creating divisions among the beneficiaries of Social Security to weaken public support for the program. He recognized that Social Security, as a universal program benefiting retirees across economic classes, had strong political support. To dismantle it, he proposed fragmenting this support base by introducing changes that would pit different groups against each other. For example:
- Privatization for Younger Workers: One tactic was to promote policies allowing younger workers to opt for private retirement savings accounts instead of contributing to the Social Security system. This could create resentment among younger workers who might view the program as unsustainable or as a burden imposed on them for the benefit of older generations.
- Means Testing: By advocating for means testing, Social Security benefits would only go to those deemed to need them most. This could erode the program’s universal appeal and transform it into a welfare program, potentially stigmatizing recipients and reducing middle-class support.
- Raising Doubts About Sustainability: Buchanan’s approach also included emphasizing concerns about the financial solvency of Social Security. By sowing doubt about the program’s long-term viability, he aimed to discourage public confidence and support.
Implications
Buchanan’s divide-and-conquer strategy reflects his broader vision of limiting government intervention and preserving individual freedoms as he saw them. However, MacLean critiques this approach as fundamentally anti-democratic. She argues that it seeks to achieve ideological goals by undermining programs with widespread public backing, often without directly confronting voters or acknowledging the broader societal impacts of dismantling such systems.
This strategy has resonated in contemporary debates, where discussions about privatization, sustainability, and means testing continue to shape the discourse around Social Security reform.