Peter Orszag has an oped in the New York Times regarding Social Security. It’s full of the usual Orszag claptrap in which he sets himself up as the sober, responsible judge, while “the left… seems adamantly opposed to restoring actuarial balance to Social Security.”

Orszag ends with this:

Given the left’s strident opposition to any serious discussion of Social Security reform, the issue will provide a key early indicator of the administration’s response to the election results.

While I don’t want to put words in his mouth, it’s hard to interpret this in any way other than “now that voters have handed the Democrats their asses, it’s time to stand up to the left and start hacking away at Social Security” –  especially since  Orszag touts his own Diamond/Orszag plan, which calls for a reduction in benefits for those who are now under 55.

Orszag may not work in the administration any more, but his voice is clearly one that the President respects.  Indeed, much of Obama’s own messaging on the issue reflects what Orszag is saying here.

And that should worry everyone, because after listening to the President’s press conference yesterday, I think the message the White House has taken away from the election results is seriously wrong.

I’ve written about Stan Greenberg’s and James Carville’s polling on what messages were most likely to move “winnable” voters to Democrats.  They found that there were two dominant messages and attacks:

1.  The first and strongest centers on changing Washington to work for the middle class and American jobs, not corporations and Wall Street. It is strengthened by attacks on Social Security and Medicare, critical for the middle class. The messages are strongest with voters under 40, younger women and unmarried women. It is strong with ‘winna-ble’ and base voters – giving it greater prominence.

2. The second, very strong message, centers on made in America, creating American jobs and opposing Republicans who support trade agreements and tax breaks for companies that export American jobs. This message is powerful with older women and seniors – and it is buttressed by attacks on Social Security and Medicare and on trade issues.

What was the weakest messaging?

The weakest messages assert we should “go forward, not back.” Voters are not moved by Democratic messages that say ‘go forward, not back,’ mention President Bush, compare then and now, or even that hint the economy is “showing signs of progress.” No matter how dramatically these messages set out the record of Republican obstruction-ism, their work for the wealthiest and Goldman Sachs, the millions of jobs lost and Democrats’ support for jobs, small business and new industries – these messages falter before the Republican attack.

Greenberg and Carville measured the “shift” when respondents were read different messaging. The greatest “shift” came when respondents were read the first and second messages, about standing up to corporations and Wall Street, protecting Social Security, and opposing “free trade” agreements.  After hearing those, there was a net shift of +9 toward the Democrat.

On the other hand, the “blame Bush,” “go forward, not backward” and “the economy is showing signs of progress” messaging — the principle messaging being used by Obama and the DNC for the past year — resulted in a two point shift toward the Republicans:

Let’s say it again.  The messaging being used for the past year by Obama, as head of the Democratic Party, results in a two point shift towards the Republicans.

Yesterday in his press conference, did Obama say he’ll protect Social Security and Medicare?  They weren’t actually mentioned.

Did he say he’ll stand up to corporations and Wall Street?  No, he said he was worried that “business took the message that, well, gosh, it seems like we may be always painted as the bad guy. ” He said he was “talking to CEO’s constantly” and that “a whole bunch of corporate executives are going to be joining us” on his upcoming trip to Asia.

Did he say he’ll fight free trade agreements?  No, he said the focus of his upcoming trip was going to be “how are we going to open up markets so that American businesses can prosper.”  And on election day, he “personally assured his South Korean counterpart about prospects for a long- delayed free trade pact that his administration is working hard to advance.”

Now Orszag wants Obama to respond to the election results by standing up to the “left” and pushing through a plan (like his) that would cut Social Security benefits to reduce the deficit, wrapped in some bullshit about “saving” Social Security.

A recent AARP poll found that 85 percent of adults oppose cutting Social Security to reduce the deficit, and that 72 percent “strongly oppose” doing so.  That’s not the “left” of anything.

The “message” of the election was that Obama (and the Democrats) aren’t doing what people think they should be doing, so they’re going to try the other guys again for a while.  And the only person who could possibly be recommending that Obama reduce the deficit on the backs of Social Security beneficiaries must have some kind of death wish for the Democratic party.