Pro Choice: A Democratic Ownership Society

Pro Choice

A DEMOCRATIC OWNERSHIP SOCIETY.

by Andrei Cherny

Published in The New Republic, November 1, 2004)

Four years ago, George W. Bush's fall campaign centered on a domestic agenda that he said would put trust in people rather than big government bureaucracies. He ran on ideas like Social Security privatization and school vouchers. But, since he took office, his virtual silence on these proposals has been so overwhelming as to make his vanished "compassionate conservative" agenda look like a Bush administration centerpiece. 

Now, with the campaign racing toward Election Day, these ideas--reformulated as parts of Bush's much-vaunted "ownership society"--are again front and center in his campaign speeches and advertising. And it's not just because he has nothing else to say that can reasonably pass as a second-term domestic plan. It is because the ideas respond to a real hunger among Americans.

Columnists like David Brooks and Alan Murray have pointed to Bush's "ownership society" as a potential building block of a new conservative outlook now that the era of big tax cuts has ended (thanks to the budget deficit). With many Democrats still wandering in the political bewilderedness, searching for a guiding philosophy now that the era of big government has ended, the party needs to seize political ground that can and should be its twenty-first-century home.

First, a look back. In late September 2000, it became fashionable to compare that year's presidential race to the contest of 1988. A sitting vice president was running in the shadow of a popular though scandal-tarred president against a reformist governor. The vice president had fallen behind in the spring but came roaring out of his convention and established a clear lead in the polls long after Labor Day. In this analogy, Bush was Michael Dukakis and Al Gore was headed to the White House. 

There is little need to recount (pun intended) what transpired. It is a sordid tale of sighs in debates and "subliminable" messages in commercials descending into a final morass of butterfly ballots and black robes. But the all-but-untold story of how Bush turned his campaign around that year is worth remembering for what it tells us about his campaign in 2004--and Democrats' chances as they head into the final stretch.

Throughout September 2000, Bush lagged three to eleven points behind Gore in polls of registered voters. But, in the second half of that month, he adopted a new strategy that worked. Outlining a vision of government that gave Americans more control over their daily lives, he began emphasizing issues like privatizing Social Security, medical savings accounts, and school vouchers--the types of proposals that today make up his "ownership society" theme. He stitched them together to reach out to an increasingly educated, self-confident, and empowered middle class with the promise of more individual choice and personal power.

Just as importantly, he used these ideas to make two powerful claims. First, that he trusted "the good people of this America to make decisions for their children and their families" while his opponent believed that "Washington ought to decide on behalf of the people in this country." Second, that he was a reformer who would change government to make it more relevant to a time when people worked and lived in ways very different than the environment that had spawned the top-down bureaucratic programs of the previous century.

When Bush unveiled this rhetoric, the Gore campaign pounced immediately--issuing a 3,500-word written rebuttal that dismissed the theme and showed why the policies wouldn't work. Yet, for more than a month, Gore did little to confront Bush's basic charge or demonstrate why he had a stronger vision when it came to empowering citizens. In fact, Gore--through his reinventing-government initiative--had not only significantly updated the workings of what had been a Mainframe Age (if not Machine Age) government, he had done more to pare down the size of the federal workforce than anyone in American history. It was only his campaign's silence on this issue that allowed him to be pegged as a "big government liberal."

To be sure, throughout the campaign, one could see glimmers of what a real duel over decision-making power might look like on the airwaves. In one of his commercials on health care, Bush had claimed, "Al Gore's prescription plan forces seniors into a government-run HMO. Governor Bush gives seniors a choice." A Gore ad stated that, "under Gore, seniors choose their own doctor" while, with Bush's plan, "they have no choice." In a Spanish language ad, Bush stated his belief that "parents can choose the best school for their children." Earlier, Gore's education ad promised "to give parents more choice in choosing public schools." But, for the most part, choice was never a major element of the Gore campaign. 

It was only in the last two weeks before the election that Gore, having fallen behind, made a major thrust to retake this ground. In Little Rock, Arkansas, on October 24, 2000, he said he would "promote change and choice, not new bureaucracies that tell people what to do" while Bush "would turn government over to the special interests and give them more power over our lives." Four days later, in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, he said, "My goal is to empower families so that you have more choices and more control." But, for Gore, it was too little too late.

This year, in the weeks leading up to the Republican convention, Bush returned to his 2000 campaign rhetoric. And, having lost momentum after a faltering performance in the first presidential debate, Bush sharpened it. "My opponent wants to empower government; I want to use government to empower people. My opponent seems to think all the wisdom is found in Washington, D.C.; I trust the wisdom of the American people," was Bush's refrain in his revised early October stump speech. Sound familiar? 

Democrats can be forgiven for coming down with a nasty case of déjà vu. But there's no reason they should make the same mistakes all over again. In fact, they are doing a better job of responding in this election than they did in 2000. That's partly because Bush's record in office and a slew of sensible Democratic policy positions give the party the opportunity to reclaim the high ground in the debate over giving citizens power and a say. After all, voters are waiting to hear someone from either party who speaks to their concerns, and Bush and his "ownership agenda" are not it. First, Bush's ideas are the warmed-over reruns of what he offered in 2000--and then largely failed to act on.

Second, as many, including Jonathan Chait in these pages ("Up and Away," September 13 & 20), have shown, there are problems with the ideas themselves. Social Security privatization, in the Bush proposal, would be enormously expensive, costing more than $1 trillion to transition to the new system without hurting present retirees. Given Bush's record deficits, this is not in the cards. Health Savings Accounts might discourage people from seeking preventive care when preventive care is what we should be promoting.

Third, Bush is in no position to run as a believer in giving "the little guy" a bigger voice and more power. In office, he has proved to be a solicitous friend of big, impersonal bureaucracies--as long as they are of the corporate variety. By consistently opposing reforms that would give Americans more information about and more control over decisions made by their health plans or their mutual funds, he has shown that his vaunted "trust" in the American people is far from complete.

Clearly, the Republican ownership ideas are ripe for criticism. But, if all Democrats did was criticize, they would not only be making a tactical mistake, they would also be passing up a great strategic opportunity to put forward their own agenda. Bush's plan, as misguided as it may be, is responding to a real longing for more choice and decision-making power. Democrats cannot allow him to own this field. In fact, it is territory that should be theirs.

Fortunately, in this campaign, we have seen the first glimmers of what a Democratic response could be. In his third and final debate with Bush, for instance, Kerry pitched his health care plan as not only a way to hold down skyrocketing costs or expand coverage, but also as a way to give Americans more power and more options. He used some variation of the word "choice" 13 times in the debate's health care discussions, spending more time on that concept than on tried-and-true needs, such as covering the uninsured or holding down premium hikes.

Much of the reason for this was defensive. It was Kerry's response to Bush's charges that he favored a Clintonesque system of government health care. But there is no need for Democrats to use ideas about expanding choice and decision-making power for citizens only to parry Republican attacks. In the months and years ahead, these concepts should serve as a central thrust of the party's agenda--in office and out, at the federal, state, and local levels. Democrats can trump Bush's "ownership society" with a vow to bring a "choice revolution" to government as bold and far-reaching as the progressive revolution that spawned Theodore and Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson.

How would this Democratic "choice revolution" work? First, while Republican plans often offer choice for the few (the very wealthy in the case of Health Savings Accounts or the very poor in the case of school vouchers), Democrats can offer choice for all--especially the middle class. For instance, they can trump school vouchers for a small number of students by introducing more choices than the Republicans for all students in public schools. And Kerry's Tempe debate answers demonstrate how Democrats can pledge to provide Americans with more say when it comes to their health care by giving them, rather than bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services or in HMOs, the power to make decisions like choosing their doctors. 

Second, the Republicans' ideological blinders prevent them from doing something the Democrats can: seeing the possibility of choice without undermining the New Deal-Great Society legacy of a strong safety net. Democrats can offer Americans personal control without ripping apart their basic security. So, while Republicans want to privatize Social Security more out of an antipathy toward the program than an actual desire to increase choice, Democrats can offer retirement savings accounts that offer personal control without risking Social Security.

In 2002, for example, former President Bill Clinton put forward an idea to "give people one or two percent of the payroll tax with the same options that federal employees have with their retirement accounts--where you have three mutual funds that almost always perform as well or better than the market and a fourth option to buy government bonds, so you get the guaranteed Social Security return and one hundred percent safety, just like you have with Social Security." It was met with silence by Democratic leaders. 

Yet it is a debate Democrats need to be having. According to a Federal Reserve study, the percentage of American households owning stock rose from 19 percent in 1983 to 52 percent in 2001. This occurred during both bull and bear markets, and the increase in stock ownership has continued long after the tech bubble so famously burst. This has been, of course, fed by a desire for wealth, but there has been more to it than that--a desire for more control. NEW REPUBLIC founder Walter Lippmann wrote 90 years ago, "The great mass of people who saved a little money can no more deal with their prosperity on their own initiative than they can deal with disease or war on their own initiative." Americans no longer feel so helpless.

This is why the Bush Social Security privatization proposal is, on its face, so popular. In an October 2003 CNN/ Gallup/USA Today poll, Americans were asked their opinion of allowing "people to put a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts that would be invested in private stocks and bonds." Sixty-two percent of Americans favored this idea, while 34 percent opposed it--even though this question was asked after one of the worst stock market declines in American history.

Declining Dow Jones averages had little impact on this desire--neither did pollsters' mention of the Enron debacle and the market's riskiness. But that should not be too surprising. In a July 2002 Zogby poll, only 16 percent of respondents said the reason they supported individual accounts was that "higher retirement benefits would result from private investment." The top answer? Thirty-nine percent said, "I, not the politicians in Washington, could control the money in my account."

If stock losses and corporate shenanigans could not shake American's desire to carve out parts of Social Security into individual accounts, what could? An alternative. In 2000, Gore proposed using parts of the then-surplus to create individual tax-deductible retirement accounts outside of the Social Security system that offered personal control without eliminating the safety net. When pollsters asked Americans their preference between this plan and privatization, the Gore proposal won by big margins--every time.

Democrats--the "party of the people," as they call themselves--should be at the forefront of looking for ways to give people more of a say in their own future and retirement, not just criticizing the other side. It is in line with the party's traditions--and has the added benefit of being politically essential.

Third, it is no accident that the Republicans have sold their agenda under the word "ownership"; it defines their view of the issue: carving out responsibility from government and placing it in the hands of individuals. Democrats do not need to travel down that road in order to give Americans more choice. Instead of privatization, they can offer personalization--reforming the already universal public-sector structures so that they respond to the public's wide diversity of needs and wants--for example, replacing one-size-fits-all public schools with classroom settings better geared to each student's own way of learning.

Finally, there is a big difference between an abstract liberty to choose and an actual ability to do so. It is one thing for Republicans to curtail government's reach and throw people back upon themselves in the market. It is another to use government activism in a way that is bigger and broader than ever tried before: to work toward a vision where it is no longer only the most fortunate in our country who get to make basic choices, such as what kind of schools their children attend or which doctor their family sees.

Democrats, often defensive about using government, are loath to do this, but the result is a mealy-mouthed message and broad confusion about what, if anything, the party stands for. The fact is, most Americans don't have antipathy toward government--they are apathetic. Government seems like an outdated institution that is out of touch with their lives. Democrats who do not seem to understand this have been losing election after election. 

Instead, this "choice revolution" not only offers a way to meet the Republican "ownership society," it is also a way for the party to find its voice again: reaching out to liberals by pushing the boundaries of government activism on behalf of equality and diversity, responding to middle-class voters who want more say and control over their lives and their family decisions, and speaking to a broad populist pique spreading across a voting public fed up with elitist, arrogant, antiquated bureaucracies in both big business and big government--and bothered that each party only gets it half right.

Democrats routinely score better among the public on domestic issues such as health care and schools. But, given a choice between a "smaller government with fewer services" and a "larger government with more services," a majority of Americans choose the former. That was true in 2000; it is true today. Nevertheless, too often Democrats give little to no indication that they have any conception of this popular dissatisfaction with government as usual.

Yet, neither do Democrats need to become cryptoconservatives. Bush's convention speech demonstrated that--to his credit--he understands that this famed polling question is the type of false choice that drives Americans up the wall and out of the political debate. The fact is that, for more than a decade, something very clear has come through about Americans' views: They want a government that is smaller, decentralized, less bureaucratic--and more active than ever before. This finding is a source of perpetual mirth for some in Washington, who cannot help but chortle at the apparent contradiction. It turns out the joke's on them.

This desire for the public sector is completely in line with what Americans have come to expect from the best of today's private sector. On the job and at home, they have more information, more personalized service, and more individual decision-making power than ever before. The race to build a new governing majority is the rush to give Americans more choice and a stronger voice. Democrats are lagging behind--but the path for them is there for the taking.