Brave New Reformer: W. proceeds with Social Security.(President Bush makes plans for Social Security reform)

If George W. Bush's father had run on the same Social Security plan in 1988 that the son did in 2000, Michael Dukakis would have been our 41st president. As President Bush forges ahead on entitlement reform, that thought should give him comfort that the politics of the issue has changed-but also remind him of the risks that remain.

Bush has just named a commission of eight Republicans and eight Democrats who agree with him that workers should be allowed to take some of the money they currently give to Social Security and invest it for themselves. The commission is supposed to report in the fall, and the president may ask Congress to act on its recommendations shortly thereafter.

Commissions are usually a cowardly pol's dodge: a way to appear to address an issue while actually ducking it. But in this case, even a commission is bold. President Bush could easily have shelved the idea of Social Security reform altogether, reasoning that a 50-50 Senate would never pass it. After the close, disputed presidential election, Bush had a mandate from the press to govern as though he were Al Gore. He has commendably declined the invitation, on Social Security as on other issues.

Bush exhibited the same mixture of boldness and caution last year. When he came out for a reform of Social Security based on individual investment, he prefaced his announcement with a series of conciliatory remarks. He allowed that Social Security was "the single most successful government program in American history." He said that he would never countenance any reduction in benefits for those who are currently retired or will soon retire. He promised that participation in an investment program would be voluntary. He noted that prominent Democrats such as then-senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan supported his idea. Bush was not an ideological enemy of the program, not a radical, not a threat.

Opinion is divided about whether the issue helped Bush in the election. Reformers brandish Election Day polls in which 57 percent of voters favored individual investment (39 percent were opposed). The proposal was more popular than Bush himself was. Skeptics, notably conservative activists Jeffrey Bell and Frank Cannon, argue that Al Gore's ad barrage against Bush's plan in the closing days of the campaign worked- erasing what had been a Bush lead. The same exit polls cited by the reformers show that among those voters for whom Social Security was the most important issue in the election (14 percent of the electorate), 58 percent chose Gore and only 40 percent Bush.

In other words, a majority of all voters may have favored reform, but the opponents were more motivated. It's possible that Bush could have done more to rally his own troops. His response ads did a good job of defending the plan against Gore's charges-reminding voters that he would not cut benefits, and so on-but didn't sell the plan's advantages to young investors.

Even if the issue ended up hurting Bush, that doesn't mean he made a political mistake in raising it. Republican strategist Ed Gillespie notes that Social Security was going to be an issue anyway-Democrats would have found a way to accuse Bush of threatening benefits whatever he said. Taking the position he did allowed Bush to set the terms of debate instead of merely denying he would cut benefits. As a result, the issue hurt Bush less than it had hurt Bob Dole in 1996. Also, as Gillespie notes, Bush's position "defined [him] as future-oriented, forward-looking, and bold."