Ownership Society- As if there was any other kind
Recently the Bush campaign has released a new theme, which they have called the "Ownership Society." Bush says,
"My administration understands the importance of ownership in our society. We've set a great goal: We want every worker in America to become a saver and an owner. And we have an agenda to meet this goal. We will help more people of every background to own their own homes and build their own savings. We will encourage more people to own their own small businesses. We'll help more people to own their own health care plans. We want younger workers to own and manage their own retirement under Social Security so that one day every worker can have the security of a personal account. When people have solid assets to call their own, they gain independence and security and dignity and more control over their future. I believe in property so much, I want everyone in America to have some."
-http://www.georgewbush.com/blog/archives/2004_02.html#000619
What struck me was not Bush's new theme, which seems to be fairly ordinary republican economic fare, but rather the reaction of a certain Paul Krugman. For those of you who are Krugman adverse I'll quote only a little bit, so everyone can get a feel for the article:
"Call me naïve, but I thought all Americans have a vital stake in the nation's future, regardless of how much property they own. (Should we go back to the days when states, arguing that only men of sufficient substance could be trusted, imposed property qualifications for voting?) Even if Mr. Bush is talking only about the economic future, don't workers have as much stake as property owners in the economy's success?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/13/opinion/13krug.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists (you'll need a subscription to the NY times for this one)
a few paragraphs down he continues:
The political problem with a policy favoring investment returns over wages is that a vast majority of Americans derive their income primarily from wages, and that the bulk of investment income goes to a small elite. How, then, can such a policy be sold? By promising that everyone can join the elite.
Krugman has told us a great deal of interest, not about the President's plan of course, but about his own politics, and about Bush's as well, by way of comparison.
Krugman makes a quick jab at the "ownership society" by referring to the ancient practice of only landowners being politically active members of society. This is a juvenile charge, which most probably would dismiss as Krugman simply being Krugman, but I'm gonna stick with it for a moment.
The idea that those with property have more at stake in their society than those who do not, is an ancient but essentially Western one. In the Roman Republic it was seen as natural that only those with property could serve in the legions, since they were the only ones who, the romans thought, had something worth fighting to defend. Traditional liberals (of the 17th century variety) considered private property equally important, indeed defining the purpose of government as the protection of that property. (Locke, John, "The Second Treatise of Government", ed. Thomas P. Peardon pg 49 for instance.)
The reason I'm going into this is because i'm going to make the following statement, which I don't really think should require such support, namely that:
It is the American Dream to own Property.
I don't think Bush is saying much more than that with this Ownership Society. I think, to translate, he's saying simply, "It is the american dream to own property, and I want to help every american realize that dream."
Makes sense to me. It's basic "American Values" stuff.
But it doesn't make sense to Krugman, because ultimately, Krugman is a socialist. He doesn't call himself that, because you can't be a viable public figure in America and be a socialist. But you can tell that Krugman is based on this column of his, which is why I found it so significant.
Krugman is disputing, not Bush so much, as two basic parts of the American philosophy:
1. It is good to own property
and
2. It is possible in America to improve your position in society.
I base the first statement on Krugman's saying the following: "Even if Mr. Bush is talking only about the economic future, don't workers have as much stake as property owners in the economy's success?"
Krugman here is patently suggesting that workers in America don't own property. He's also suggesting that property owners don't work for that property, implying essentially that those with property are thieves, and workers are honest, yet own nothing. Was it Proudhon who said "property is theft"? I can't remember off- hand. Anyway, Krugman is basically suggesting that workers in America ( I don't know why he doesn't use the term Proletariat, since its what he's implying, that American workers are poor, class bound group, with no-ownership or stake in society.)
I don't know how much time Krugman has spent amongst working class people. I don't think its any more or less than I have. But I spent a few months last summer around some factory workers making refrigerators and freezers. And one of the young ladies I met there, (she was twenty-something, high school graduate only, couple kids, and a husband with a police record) told me that they put their incomes, whatever they didn't need for surviving, into acquiring property. They bought land, and harley motorcycles, actually, both good investments, which, if you take proper care of them, can increase in value, (apparently, I don't know that much about Harleys, but this is what she told me.) To me she was proof-positive against the imaginary American worker that Krugman is talking about.
I think that its clear that Americans, of all income-brackets, want to own homes, and motorcycles, or maybe stocks, or farm land. In short they want to own property.
The second point, that Krugman disagrees with the second point, which i said was quintessentially American, can be seen in the statement he makes,
" How then can such a policy be sold? by promising that everyone can join the elite."
Apparently you are part of the elite if you own a piece of property. If you are working towards paying off your mortgage, or if you are purchasing stock.
In short, ladies and gentlemen, Krugman's column here is telling us, essentially, that the American Dream is bunk. You cannot improve yourself or your station in life. And if you think you can you're nothing but an elitist, trying to only profit the rich.
"My administration understands the importance of ownership in our society. We've set a great goal: We want every worker in America to become a saver and an owner. And we have an agenda to meet this goal. We will help more people of every background to own their own homes and build their own savings. We will encourage more people to own their own small businesses. We'll help more people to own their own health care plans. We want younger workers to own and manage their own retirement under Social Security so that one day every worker can have the security of a personal account. When people have solid assets to call their own, they gain independence and security and dignity and more control over their future. I believe in property so much, I want everyone in America to have some."
-http://www.georgewbush.com/blog/archives/2004_02.html#000619
What struck me was not Bush's new theme, which seems to be fairly ordinary republican economic fare, but rather the reaction of a certain Paul Krugman. For those of you who are Krugman adverse I'll quote only a little bit, so everyone can get a feel for the article:
"Call me naïve, but I thought all Americans have a vital stake in the nation's future, regardless of how much property they own. (Should we go back to the days when states, arguing that only men of sufficient substance could be trusted, imposed property qualifications for voting?) Even if Mr. Bush is talking only about the economic future, don't workers have as much stake as property owners in the economy's success?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/13/opinion/13krug.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists (you'll need a subscription to the NY times for this one)
a few paragraphs down he continues:
The political problem with a policy favoring investment returns over wages is that a vast majority of Americans derive their income primarily from wages, and that the bulk of investment income goes to a small elite. How, then, can such a policy be sold? By promising that everyone can join the elite.
Krugman has told us a great deal of interest, not about the President's plan of course, but about his own politics, and about Bush's as well, by way of comparison.
Krugman makes a quick jab at the "ownership society" by referring to the ancient practice of only landowners being politically active members of society. This is a juvenile charge, which most probably would dismiss as Krugman simply being Krugman, but I'm gonna stick with it for a moment.
The idea that those with property have more at stake in their society than those who do not, is an ancient but essentially Western one. In the Roman Republic it was seen as natural that only those with property could serve in the legions, since they were the only ones who, the romans thought, had something worth fighting to defend. Traditional liberals (of the 17th century variety) considered private property equally important, indeed defining the purpose of government as the protection of that property. (Locke, John, "The Second Treatise of Government", ed. Thomas P. Peardon pg 49 for instance.)
The reason I'm going into this is because i'm going to make the following statement, which I don't really think should require such support, namely that:
It is the American Dream to own Property.
I don't think Bush is saying much more than that with this Ownership Society. I think, to translate, he's saying simply, "It is the american dream to own property, and I want to help every american realize that dream."
Makes sense to me. It's basic "American Values" stuff.
But it doesn't make sense to Krugman, because ultimately, Krugman is a socialist. He doesn't call himself that, because you can't be a viable public figure in America and be a socialist. But you can tell that Krugman is based on this column of his, which is why I found it so significant.
Krugman is disputing, not Bush so much, as two basic parts of the American philosophy:
1. It is good to own property
and
2. It is possible in America to improve your position in society.
I base the first statement on Krugman's saying the following: "Even if Mr. Bush is talking only about the economic future, don't workers have as much stake as property owners in the economy's success?"
Krugman here is patently suggesting that workers in America don't own property. He's also suggesting that property owners don't work for that property, implying essentially that those with property are thieves, and workers are honest, yet own nothing. Was it Proudhon who said "property is theft"? I can't remember off- hand. Anyway, Krugman is basically suggesting that workers in America ( I don't know why he doesn't use the term Proletariat, since its what he's implying, that American workers are poor, class bound group, with no-ownership or stake in society.)
I don't know how much time Krugman has spent amongst working class people. I don't think its any more or less than I have. But I spent a few months last summer around some factory workers making refrigerators and freezers. And one of the young ladies I met there, (she was twenty-something, high school graduate only, couple kids, and a husband with a police record) told me that they put their incomes, whatever they didn't need for surviving, into acquiring property. They bought land, and harley motorcycles, actually, both good investments, which, if you take proper care of them, can increase in value, (apparently, I don't know that much about Harleys, but this is what she told me.) To me she was proof-positive against the imaginary American worker that Krugman is talking about.
I think that its clear that Americans, of all income-brackets, want to own homes, and motorcycles, or maybe stocks, or farm land. In short they want to own property.
The second point, that Krugman disagrees with the second point, which i said was quintessentially American, can be seen in the statement he makes,
" How then can such a policy be sold? by promising that everyone can join the elite."
Apparently you are part of the elite if you own a piece of property. If you are working towards paying off your mortgage, or if you are purchasing stock.
In short, ladies and gentlemen, Krugman's column here is telling us, essentially, that the American Dream is bunk. You cannot improve yourself or your station in life. And if you think you can you're nothing but an elitist, trying to only profit the rich.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home