“The Ownership Society”
I don’t know what President Bush means by the “Ownership Society.” Does he mean we must own our own destiny and embrace personal responsibility? Does he mean we must be good consumers and own things like oversize houses, electronics gadgets that relieve us of quiet, deliberative time, downsized military vehicles to transport our things and children from home to mall to school? Does he mean that we are to become portfolio managers and day traders owning are own financial destiny, stewarded by those who brought us the savings and loan debacle, the mutual fund scandals and raised money from us to shore up Enron? What is the “Ownership Society?”
At issue here is the deep tradition in this country of balancing ownership and commonwealth. If we credit this administration with philosophical thinking and imagine their meaning to be “ownership” of our fate and accepting personal responsibility, then we must measure this new and somewhat ironic Darwinism on their part against our deep tradition of supporting the commonweal. Distinct from socialism, the commonweal is the spiritual and political understanding deep in our history that not everyone in this country will or can own everything they need to get along or even survive. Collectively, it comprises education, research, eldercare, environmental protection, the criminal justice and regulatory systems, healthcare, defense of the nation and help for the “impoverished” to use Bishop Oscar Romero’s term. As Christ tells us in the Bible, “The poor will always be among us.” One can hear this as an expressed obligation to aid the poor or one can hear it as a “accept this and move on.” Like much in the Bible, different interpretations can be applied to endorse any current political theory.
If, however, the “Ownership Society” means that we are to privatize and profitize a key tenet of organized societies, Social Security, the one that ensures a modest, but secure retirement for our elders, we had better do so with more than just profits in mind. Conservatives have for years sought to reconcile the “for profit” motive with the “social mission” around which governments are designed. But it is an inherent and irreconcilable conflict. Either one is committed to enhancing the bottom line or fulfilling mission. It is very hard to do both. The record of serving these two masters is not stellar as we have seen in healthcare, private contractors in Iraq, for-profit schools and many private prison systems.
As financial experts have pointed out, Social Security is not a near-term train wreck, it is a system that needs refueling. People who want more control over their own financial destiny in retirement are now free to save for their retirement in anyway they choose, but their contributions in the form of SSI deductions are vital to fund the commonweal, the common good.
It’s a well know fact that to win or maintain power in a democracy, one must give the voters what they want or at least promise to. This can take the form of popular new programs, tax cuts, or both as this administration has done. Once in power, however, one must then either run up huge deficits or not fund what one has promised or, again as this administration is doing, both, especially if one is also trying to fund a costly and ill planned war. Privatizing key elements of social mission can seem like an easy solution to reconciling what one has promised and what one can deliver.
But the relentless conservative drive to privatize and generate profit from these elements of mission puts the most fundamental elements of community at risk.
In Vermont, we have a deep tradition of recognizing and ensuring a common good. It descended from the Republican Century of Vermont and was revitalized in the Democratic Revolution of Governor Hoff. It runs deep as well in the country at large and is embedded in our founding documents. The sense of a commonweal originated in the tenuous communities that sprang up in the early colonies. Our predecessors understood that the good of the whole was vital to the good of the individual. They certainly knew that commerce was fundamental to healthy communities, but knew also that commerce, like individuals, needed rules by which to play.
The harmony between the individual, commerce and community has always been a delicate balance. Let’s not profitize everything to build an “ownership society.”
Bill Schubart
4:21:28 AM 
|
|
