Senior Politics

Though MIT’s Andrea Louise Campbell grew up in a family that was determinedly apolitical, she became fascinated by politics while an undergraduate at Harvard.

Even so, she says, the concept of studying politics as a career never really found a prominent place on her radar screen. Campbell instead emphasized another interest in launching her post-college life: management. She’d run a travel agency, and also produced Harvard’s renowned Hasty Pudding Theatricals. (The latter meant she got to meet Steve Martin, her year’s Hasty Pudding Club Man of the Year: “He can turn the humor on and off,” she says, “but basically he’s a very bright and interesting guy.”) So, the California native decided management consulting would be a good fit.

In fact it was fine, she says, but not quite appealing enough. “I just decided I’d rather be in an academic setting,” notes Campbell.

Given her history, political science seemed an obvious choice for graduate study. But Campbell specifically wanted to focus on “the real lives of real people.” So when she went to Berkeley, she honed in on that key juncture where politics intersects policy, which in turn has led her to explore topics like the impact of seniors on the political world.

Campbell’s book, How Policies Make Citizens: Senior Political Activism and the American Welfare State, and several articles analyze the complex political dynamics involved in the interconnections between seniors and the Social Security program. The work makes for compelling reading.

Seniors today, notes Campbell — the Alfred Henry and Jean Morrison Hayes Assistant Professor of Political Science — are a true political force. But that wasn’t always so. In fact, at one time seniors in the U.S. weren’t even identifiable as a discrete electoral bloc.

In pre-Depression America, notes the faculty member, most individuals lived out their lives on farms. “But then, when the Depression rolled around, suddenly seniors became a burden, especially in urban areas,” she says. “They had the highest poverty rate of any group in the country.”

The New Deal-originated Social Security program was meant to change that, and did — but not right away. As late as 1950, fewer than a fifth of seniors were eligible under Social Security’s then rules. But later expansions vastly upped the numbers. “By 1980, some 82 percent of seniors were covered,” says Campbell.

That created a robust and in some ways unique constituency for Social Security. While better-off individuals typically participate more in a nation’s political system than those further down the economic ladder, she notes that “the non-affluent have gained a strong political voice around Social Security.”

One key reason, says the faculty member, is that Social Security — unlike Medicare, where the benefits flow through third parties like hospitals — has a transparent structure. “You pay in through payroll taxes,” says Campbell, “and the government gives you money back.”

It’s the political clout of seniors, obviously, that makes changing Social Security difficult. Though some in Campbell’s field thought President Bush’s 2005 push to partially privatize the program would succeed, many — including Campbell — did not. “It was because of this huge group that’s committed to the current structure,” she says.

Campbell herself is highly sympathetic to the program’s aims, but worries its political sensitivity will block needed changes. “There are some tweaks we could make now that wouldn’t impose much pain,” she argues, “but if we wait 20 or 30 years, it’s going to be extremely painful.”

by Richard Anthony « Previous | Next »

On Topic: faculty, political science