In the increasingly divisive debate about Social Security reform, the generation whose interests are supposedly being defended is getting caught in the crossfire.

Inflexible ideologues on both sides are putting partisan strategy first, to the detriment of reasonable and needed reforms.

Some right-wing Republicans seem intent on forgetting that private investment accounts are a means to the end of shoring up the solvency of Social Security – not an end in themselves.

But when I hear reactionary Democrats defend the “do nothing” approach by saying that there is no crisis in Social Security because the system won’t be insolvent until 2042, I take their casual attitude a little personally because I’ll be 69 in 2042. Thanks for passing the buck, bud.

Young people tend not to think much about Social Security for obvious reasons. The prospects of retirement seem, and in fact are, a lifetime away. Our experience with the system is limited to file footage of FDR and grandparents’ occasional statements of appreciation, but most personally in the form of a confiscation of a significant chunk of our paycheck to pay into a “trust fund” that very few of us believe will actually be there when we shuffle off into a twilight of shuffleboard.

In one pathetic but telling example, a 1994 poll by Third Millennium, a Generation X issue advocacy organization, reported that more 18-to-34-year-old adults believed that UFOs exist (46%) than believed Social Security will exist when they retire (28%).

Our skepticism is understandable: the baby boom generation has a lengthy track record of gobbling up everything put in front of them, and there is no reason to assume that Social Security would be any different.

Certainly, I’ve never expected to rely exclusively on Social Security to survive in my old age. The average annual payout to date is roughly $10,000, which would barely cover a few months’ rent here in New York City. I have, however, imagined Social Security as a small supplement to future income based solely on the principle that I have paid in to the system in the past. This is consistent with my generation’s modest libertarian streak and free-market perspective. We tend to see Social Security as a means of assistance to the needy rather than a universal entitlement.

Social Security has been, in most respects, a great success. The percentage of senior citizens living in poverty has decreased to roughly 10% today from more than 35% in the 1950s. But only one-fifth of Social Security recipients depend exclusively on their Social Security income to live. In charting a course for Social Security reform, protecting this one-fifth against the indignity of poverty in old age should be our overarching priority.

An all-or-nothing ideological approach to Social Security reform will lead nowhere, and doing nothing is just not an option. The reality of the situation is that we have an aging population. A bipartisan solution is essential. But these are not bipartisan times in Washington.

Still, there are some signs that a solution to this deadlock may come from centrists of both parties. Senator Chafee, a Republican of Rhode Island, and Senator Ben Nelson, a Democrat of Nebraska, of the Senate’s Centrist Coalition, were interviewed on “Meet the Press” over the weekend, discussing their group pledge to keep an open mind on all proposals. Senator Graham, a Republican of South Carolina, whose own family was sustained by Social Security payments after the untimely death of his parents, has been working with Senator Conrad, a Democrat of North Dakota, to look at a price-indexing solution combined with personal accounts.

President Clinton deserves credit as an early advocate for saving Social Security. He hosted a largely forgotten two-day, bipartisan Social Security conference in December of 1998, where then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott spoke alongside the likes of liberal Rep. Richard Gephardt. Former Senator Kerrey remains a steady Democratic voice for Social Security reform, while Senator Moynihan had proposed a “Social Security plus” solution that would allow workers to opt-in an additional percentage of their pay to private investment accounts. A Clinton economic adviser, Gene Sperling, and Rep. Rahm Emanuel, a Democrat from Illinois, have advocated the creation of a universal 401(k) account as a supplemental solution.

If the focus is taken off ideological absolutism, we see there are a variety of ways to address the approaching insolvency of Social Security. But we need to agree that the status quo of Social Security is not ultimately sustainable or fiscally responsible. We also need to agree that the underlying goal of Social Security – protecting the elderly from the indignity of extreme poverty – is a sacrosanct American value. Any bipartisan solution will likely entail some degree of privatization. After all, the current federal Thrift Savings Plan, available to all members of Congress, allows participants to invest in stocks for a higher return. Surely the citizens whose tax dollars pay those pensions deserve the same respect and opportunity.

Younger Americans are ready to listen and participate in an open debate about the most fiscally responsible means for achieving Social Security reform. We’re clear on at least one thing: the aging of the baby boomers should not be a burden that dominates every aspect of our lifetime – doing nothing is not an option.