The Ownership Society

Ronald Brownstein has an interesting piece in the LA Times about the potential downside of an "Ownership society" as President Bush is proposing. In it we hear the story of Mark Winston Griffith who has done some amazing things with creating an ownership society in some of New York's most desperate neighborhoods. His Central Brooklyn Partnership sounds like a great organization that helps those around it purchase their homes and take responsibility for their finances.

So how is this "seeing the downside" of the ownership society? This seems more akin to a endorsement of the ownership society and a shining example of how it can transform lives and neighborhoods. Well, we discover the criticism in this quote:

"What America really needs," Griffith wrote, "is a policy vision which sparks community building and cooperation among its citizens rather than instructing them to simply spend their way into the American Dream."

In other words, we need to get people to work together to build their communities rather than buying their way to happiness. But how does this contradict the Ownership Society concept? It's pretty obvious that Mr Giffith's efforts have combined the ownership society ideal and community service to achieve the strengthening of those neighborhood his groups works in. It seems that he does endorse Bush's ownership society concept through his actions, if not his words.

The discontinuity lies in the idea that Bush's proposed Ownership Society is the end-all-be-all of his social policy.

Just like a doctor might prescribe a drug to treat a problem (say Zocor for high levels of cholesterol) that doesn't mean that that one thing will solve all problems nor does it mean that because that one thing is being addressed you should ignore others. Drugs aren't prescribed in isolation. You still should watch your diet and exercise and perhaps take different drugs for other maladies. Doing one thing does not preclude the other.

The same goes for our society: A prescription of an "ownership society" will treat some of the problems but it isn't intended to be done in isolation. It isn't a snakeoil "this will solve all of your problems" solution but part of a bigger solution that includes community involvement (remember the Faith Based and Community Initiatives program that Bush initiated in his first term?).

The assumption is that Bush and Co. are ignoring all other societal aids for this one thing. Not true. The Ownership Society concept is merely part of a bigger picture of general societal health.