Did AARP "pivot" on Social Security to stop membership bleeding?

What AARP did to derail rational discussion of Social Security reform in 2005 was reprehensible and, as the organization is now effectively admitting. Finally coming around after letting the demographic time bomb’s fuse nearly run out is hardly impressive. I also suspect that whatever AARP believes is “reform” has nothing to do with giving Americans some degree of control over how their money is invested, and has nothing to do with giving them a nest egg they can pass on to their heirs if they don’t survive to retirement. And of course, AARP supported the passage of Obamacare in a case of what was fairly seen as a case of brazen self-interest.

The Journal’s Laura Meckler’s reference to “many” AARP members who would might oppose any reform is apt. How “many”? I suspect AARP has polled this internally, and has found that fierce opponents are in a distinct minority.

Which gets to the membership question I brought up in the post’s title.

Meckler’s reference to “37 million members” caught my eye. That seemed lower than the numbers I’ve recently seen concerning AARP membership rolls — and it is…