The “Ownership Society:” Some more equal than others

Every American is familiar with the truths that we hold to be self-evident-that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights and the inherent equality of humanity. We know that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights enumerate and protect these truths. We have an indestructible faith in the free and rugged individual to create her own livelihood on life’s frontiers. So why, then, does our president’s affirmation of this democratic faith strike me hollow as he speaks of an “ownership society?”

“By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny,” declared President Bush in his Second Inaugural Address, “we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear, and make our society more prosperous and just and equal.”

But will we? Can we rely on our fellow citizens to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, to see the acres of diamonds on their doorsteps, to become Horatio Algers? I believe that we could-if our intrepid individualist has an even playing field.

Unfortunately, for too many Americans, the playing field looks more like a barren mountainside than a fruited plain. Legally, the poorest person has the same rights as the most powerful corporation. But in practice, the poorest in our society lack the resources to defend themselves and their equality.

Take, for example, O.J. Simpson. The Heisman Trophy winner is free and enjoying his equality while any other black American of more limited means would today be languishing in jail. O.J. could afford a dream team of lawyers that used every legal advantage to avoid jail. Can the black man on the 11 o’clock news afford the same equality? Hardly. Everyone has the same rights that kept O.J. out of jail, but not everyone can afford them. We are all equal, but only to the extent that we can secure our equality for ourselves.

But we are only at the base of the mountain. The legal and practical obstacles that low-income Americans face border on income-ism.

The minimum wage is half, and in some places a third, of the wage required to afford decent housing. For the lowest wage earners, even the right to go to the bathroom on the job was not universally recognized until the mid-1990s. Because low-paying jobs do not provide health insurance, the poor suffer from a lack of healthcare and are therefore more likely to get sick-hampering their ability to work. Even getting a job in the first place can be difficult, as job applications require a permanent address and housing costs money that these people don’t have.

Finally, low-income individuals sometimes lack “cultural capital”-that set of norms and behaviors that include hygiene and interpersonal skills that allow people to function in a professional atmosphere. This can make simply interviewing for a job a daunting and sometimes futile process. It takes money to earn money-for rich and poor alike.

So why do President Bush’s words ring hollow? Perhaps it is that when he speaks of an “ownership society” he speaks of a society that entrenches the privileged at the top of the mountain, where the field is flat and the diamonds are found. A society that promotes and rewards “ownership” does nothing for those who own nothing. The poor are not lazy; they are not undeserving. The poor work harder and get paid less for cleaning toilets than the executives who order them cleaned. If the “ownership society” meant that Bush would raise the minimum wage and thus expand the ownership class, his words might not ring so hollow. Rather than promote equality by providing people the means to buy life’s basic necessities, Bush’s pro-business policies mean that our Constitutional equality will continue to only benefit those who can afford it.

Posted by Colonnade Archives on Jan 28 2005. Filed under Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry