Home > Blogs > About Rich's Work > Rich's Blog: Redeeming Hope
Printable Version
Tell a friend
The Ownership Society
-
Sep 3, 2004 Posted by Rich HarwoodRichard C. Harwood, President, The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation
President Bush threw the gears into reverse last night at the Republican Convention by offering a hopeful, often visionary speech to the American people. What a difference a day makes! Hang onto your seats. The differences in this campaign are now crystal clear. We'd all benefit if only the candidates would now engage rather than trashtalk each other. There is one theme from the President's speech I want to raise specifically this morning: "the ownership society." The president continually returned to the ideas of liberty, freedom, individual control, ownership -- each and all emphasizing the individual in society, and maximizing their independence. But independence from what and whom? I and others in this space have discussed the extent to which people have been separating from one another in this country. We move to places with like-minded folks. Many Americans have retreated from public life into close-knit circles and behind gated communities. We are told to behave as consumers -- get what you want, when you want it -- 24/7. Sure, let's help every American buy a home and attend college. I have those dreams for my own kids. But I have another dream too: that each of us belongs to the common society. This is not some abstract notion, but a practical aspiration and need. Both candidates need to challenge the American people on this, rather than merely auction off tax cuts and new government programs as a way to win votes. For instance, in the common society:- • People feel ownership of their
government -- that it listens, is responsive,
and is not held hostage by special interests,
and doesn’t give only lip service to these
ideas.
• People feel ownership of their involvement
-- that the expectation in this society is that
each of us will step up and really become
involved in our communities, not turn away from
them.
• People feel ownership of each other --
that is, they see themselves as connected, and
so challenges of health care, public schools,
and other concerns are framed in terms of what
"we, as a society" need, not what "I" want. We
must think beyond ourselves.
• People feel an ownership of the tone of
public life -- that we will come out from our
close-knit circles and engage one another,
debate and, when possible, find common ground.
We simply cannot retreat into our enclaves.
The president's speech creates the expectation of maximized ownership and total liberty in America. But we cannot live alone. John Kerry would do well to heed this message, too. His "middle class contract" is really not a contract at all, where people must reciprocate in fulfilling some obligation, but a bill of goods he is selling the American people. Let's reset the expectations. Let's have a new common society -- where people pursue their individual dreams and work for the public good.
-
Sep 4, 2004 | Dee Davis | deedavis @aol.com
Regarding Harwood's praise of the Bush speech: The President is talking about an "ownership society," but at the same time his FDIC has just voted 3-2 to exempt over 75% of the effected banks from their Community Reinvestment Act obligations. That will mean hundreds of billions of private sector dollars now going to housing and business development in poor and rural communities will dry up. You say visionary speech. I say check the policy, talk is cheap. http://ruralstrategies.org
-
Sep 3, 2004 | Wyn | wyn@attglobal.net
If what we want is a society that works for the common good -- and I think it a worthy goal -- we ought to be looking at collecting for the commons the value of that which none of us can claim to have made: the land, on which we all rely. Significant chunks of urban land are quite valuable (easily tens of thousands of times per acre what agricultural land is worth -- yes, really!) and allowing their current holders -- be they corporations, trusts, families or individuals -- to collect rent on it from others, or to sell it to others for awesome amounts of money, or even merely to occupy it cheaply is the ultimate privatization of what is rightly our common asset.
This is not difficult to correct. It is a whole lot fairer to place a tax on land values than it is to tax our wages. And it makes a whole lot more sense to place a tax on land values than to tax some or all of our sales transactions.
We rightly own the buildings we build and the equipment/furnishings we make or buy for them, and no tax should be collected on such activities or holdings; they are legitimately private.
Secure title to property is important. While we own a piece of land, we should be able to use it fully (as long as we don't harm it or others). But we owe to those we exclude from it fair payment for that exclusion.
*That* would promote the common good.
And, interestingly, it would also produce compact cities, eliminate urban blight, rein back urban sprawl. While I regard those as highly desirable side benefits, that is all they are.
While we are at it, we should claim back the airwaves as our common property, requiring their holders to pay annual lease money to the commons, rather than being able to sell at a profit what is legitimately our shared asset. Currently the "owners" of our broadcast frequencies are collecting huge benefits, and getting to keep them, rather than paying us our due in annual rent.
By all means, let us seek to understand how best to serve the common good! Thank you for calling attention to this, in this election year.
(And, by the way, I'm waiting for someone to ask the question, "Are WE better off than we were four years ago?") The answer matters. As does the answer to "Is the world better off than it was 4 years ago?"
-
Sep 3, 2004 | Paul | info@lovellfilms.com
Richard, I've enjoyed following your quest for a better America through more reasoned, civil public discourse. So your calling Bush's RNC speech "visionary" and "hopeful" stunned me, frankly. His speech was full of glittering generalities about America and lacked any substantitve discussion of issues and differences between himself and Kerry. The differences he did point out weren't even accurate. For example, Bush said Kerry wanted to "raise your taxes" -- implying the majority of Americans -- when, in fact, Kerry's tax plan calls for cuts in taxes on all but the wealthiest bracket of Americans. See the AP's fact-checking story to see how many half-truths and distortions littered Bush's speech.
The Bush Administration has consistently tried to muffle reasoned public debate over any issue. They have intimidated people that have attempted to dissent with the administration (Valerie Plame incident, Richard Clark smear, etc). By this point, any speech by Bush that appeals to the citizenry's "hopefulness" shouldn't be interpreted as anything but a smokescreen.
I agree, the campaigning by both sides has been far too negative, but empty slogans about "hope" without action behind them aren't much of a step up.
-
Sep 3, 2004 | john | barthjg@aol.com
I'm trying to imagine ANY of the speakers at the Republican convention talking to and about the values Richard describes. Arnold??!! The head spins at that concept. Maybe...maybe..John McCain. Did anyone except that football player urge anyone to 1) follow news and information abt the campaigns and 2) VOTE? I listened to most of the speeches, but the party didn't even ask the minimum of voters. Sure there were calls to help get them elected, but that isn't an honest call to public service. I did hear attacks on the media. (And the media with the most clout--TV--sold out any obligation to public service. We were shocked in the 60s when CBS refused to air the first Senate hearings on the Vietnam War because soap operas were more important. No one would blink now...) Maybe John Edwards comes the closest of any of the candidates to what Rich is talking about. But we all now have such low expectations of each other; this is the new ME Society where we ask less and less of ourselves, less of our leaders as public servants, but more as servants of patronage to narrow self interest. http://www.johnbarth.com