Features » October 29, 2004

A Dangerous Legacy

Bush’s “ownership society” champions a hyper-individualism that threatens the commons.

By Adam Werbach

It would be difficult for a president to express more disregard for the environment than George W. Bush. Bush refused to act on global warming, declaring the Kyoto treaty dead. He refused to continue the Superfund program, sticking Americans with a multi-billion-dollar tab for cleaning up corporate toxic waste. He refused to enforce the Clean Air Act and shelved years worth of legal work by the Environmental Protection Agency to hold power plants accountable for breaking pollution laws. From the downright absence of discussion of the environment in his State of the Union address to his decision to appoint anti-regulation oil and gas industry lobbyist J. Steven Griles as Deputy Secretary of the Interior, his consistent hostility has sent shivers down the spine of every nature-loving American.

Although Bush’s attacks on the environment virtually match those conducted against the rest of America, the environment stands apart from these other issues. Unlike a Bush-appointed federal judge who eventually will retire or an ill-conceived tax policy that can be reversed, once the environment is sacrificed it cannot be revived.

But Bush’s most insidious action to date has been changing the terms of the debate on the environment, effectively making extremism the new standard.

The success of the Bush administration’s assault on the environment suggests a much larger failure in what we collectively assumed was an unstoppable march toward greater respect for our fellow humans and the broader natural world. Facts about misdeeds alone are no longer enough to stop the encroachment on nature, our bodies and our civil rights. Many progressives can’t comprehend why the majority of Americans continue to think the president is a strong leader and at the same time admit that he gets the facts wrong, whether it’s weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or calling an increase in mercury releases in the air an environmental achievement. Even more alarming is the rapid decline in support for environmentalism that predates Bush. From 1996 to 2000 the percentage of Americans willing to accept higher pollution in the future to preserve jobs rose from 17 percent to 25 percent, according to an in-depth national values survey conducted by Environics. At the same time the number of Americans who believe that people who belong to environmental groups are extremists rose from 32 percent to 41 percent. While the 2004 results of this survey have yet to be released, the numbers likely will continue to suggest that the age of environmentalism is waning.

The core of the problem lies in the progressive approach to solving problems through policy initiatives, rather than refocusing the debate on the underlying values that are being attacked. The Bush administration has spoken plainly about their values project: The creation of an ownership society.

The CATO Institute, the preeminent champion of the ownership society, defines it as follows: “An ownership society values responsibility, liberty and property. Individuals are empowered by freeing them from dependence on government handouts and making them owners instead, in control of their own lives and destinies. In the ownership society, patients control their own health care, parents control their own children’s education, and workers control their retirement savings.”

The values represented by a society where individuals own everything are anathema to the collective values of stewardship and ecological protection that science tells us we must foster to sustain natural systems burdened by the size and consumption patterns of the global population. In an ownership society, everyone has the right to own the most-polluting sports utility vehicle; in a society with commons values, those people who buy polluting SUVs are responsible for paying higher taxes to compensate society for taking from the common atmospheric resource we share. The commons values that we have relied upon since the Great Depression have been the underpinning of the economic and cultural growth of America. From Social Security to public education to the Clean Water Act, the framework for progressive political action has been the commons.

Today, the commons framework is under attack, and the individual movements that progressives have created to maintain our commons values are impotent to fight the larger battle through the lens of individual issues. Most environmentalists would not think that fighting against school vouchers and privatizing public education are the most important battlefronts for the protection of our forests. But if the battle is for the value of ownership versus the value of the commons, winning the fight over public education in a way that raises the profile of commons values may very well be the best battle that environmentalists can fight. Likewise, campaign finance reform advocates may find their most effective battle to be the reining in of the oil and coal industries’ attempts to seize public mineral rights, for there is no better example of private greed subverting the American political system.

The Bush administration’s greatest victory over the environmental movement has been changing in the terms of debate. Our challenge is not to create specific policy initiatives to counter each of the administration’s corporate giveaways, but to change the values framework that allows them to get away with it. If progressives can counter the advance of the ownership society, we’ll stand a better chance of stopping environmental insults, and in the process, we might save public education as well.

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  I enjoy reading these well thought out artilces.  I am a reformed Bush supporter who starting to see through the fog as to where we are headed.  It can be hard to see past the Orwellian terms they use to hide intentions.  If only people would get out of their televison induced stupors, then we can progress as a country.  The end may be closer than we think.

  Posted by Big Bear on Oct 29, 2004 at 12:59 PM

  Everyone needs to see the “Ownership Society” idea for what it really is: government withdrawing from its necessary role as arbiter and regulator, leaving individuals to fend for themselves against monolithic corporate interests. Its proponents are those who are already priviliged and least in need of government assistance. Its victims are the middle class, working class and poor.

  Posted by Pete Anderson on Oct 29, 2004 at 1:25 PM

  I do think the idea of an ownership society is legitimate on paper.  Just as communism seems to be a feesable alternative, but they are the extremes of both sides.  If we could just find a place in the middle for us all to enjoy the same experience without sacrificing the good of the whole.  Capitalism and ownership bring about competition and progress of a society.  Collectivism leaves no one behind as we all look out for each other.  Being naive about the world at large leaves me up in the air as to how this balance can be achieved.  This is where the ownership society may help, but it does not have to do with property rights and monetary privelidge.  It think this is where an individual has to take ownership for how they treat people.  Knowing that what goes around comes around.  In this dog eat dog world, the elite did not get there without stepping on some toes.  Maybe it is time those that keep these people in power, take the power back.

  Posted by Big Bear on Oct 29, 2004 at 1:36 PM

  I think arguing values is exactly wrong. Bush and Company are not acting from values, the “ownership society” is a meaningless slogan that is meant to hide the fact that they actually want to use the government to redistribute income and wealth upwards.

  To take a couple of examples, if these folks really believed in the free market, when it comes to Social Security they would say everyone is on their own. If you don’t save during your working years, too bad for you. That is absolutely NOT what they are saying. They are proposing government mandated savings accoutns. These accounts coincidentally will mean a fortune in commissions and fees for their contributors in the financial industry.

  For a second example take Medicare. Bush actually proposed a large expansion of Medicare with his prescription drug benefit. Of course, much of the money happens to go to his friends in the pharmaceutical industry. (Free-marketers would be opposed to drug patents—the creation of governments, not nature.) He also proposed expanding individual choice in Medicare by guess what—increasing subsidies to the insurance industry so that it can better compete with the traditional Medicare program.

  The “ownership society’ is in fact empty rhetoric. There is aboslutely no reason for prgressives ever to accept this rhetoric as an accurate description of the Republican agenda—it isn’t. We should focus on what they do --use the government to give money to their rich friends, not what they say.

  Dean baker

  Posted by Dean Baker on Oct 29, 2004 at 2:18 PM

  DU - Depleted Uranium
  They are destoying the world we live in.
  The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War

  http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Trojan-Horse1jul04.htm

  Depleted Uranium Situation Requires Action By President Bush and Prime Minister Blair

  http://traprockpeace.org/doug_rokke_12july04.html

  DU & Health Facts and Helpful Information PFD.

  http://traprockpeace.org/du_health.pdf

  What the U.S. Govt Know about DU? PFD.

  http://traprockpeace.org/moret_25nov03.pdf

  The Illegality of DU Weaponry PFD.

  http://traprockpeace.org/karen_parker_du_illegality.pdf

  World Uranium Weapons Conference

  Oct 16-19 - University of Hamburg, Germany

  http://traprockpeace.org/depleted_uranium_hamburg03.html#law

  3 Questions from Doug Rokke, Ph.D. to the Department of Defense

  concerning its use of radioactive weapons

  “No available technology can significantly change the inherent chemical and

  radiological toxicity of DU. These are intrinsic properties of uranium.”

  http://traprockpeace.org/rokke_du_3_ques.html

  Depleted Uranium (so-called) and Casualties of the Gulf Wars

  http://traprockpeace.org/depleted_uranium.html

  “Depleted Uranium Casualties: Care Denied”

  http://traprockpeace.org/rokke_du_care_denied.html

  Traprock Peace Center www.traprockpeace.org

  Posted by Joni Job on Oct 30, 2004 at 11:02 AM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 16 posts.

Also featured Dissenters Be Damned!
The Hollow Man
Reality Check

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Adam Werbach

• No More of the Same
  "The Death of Environmentalism--Global Warming Politics in a Post-Environmental World," by Michael… morePosted on June 22, 2005
• Environmentalism is dead. Whats next?
  When the U.S. Senate voted to allow drilling in the Arctic National… morePosted on June 21, 2005
• Be a Good Steward
  Using Bush’s playbook, Kerry could employ executive orders to create a sustainable centuryPosted on July 19, 2004
• Hostile Takeover
  Anti-immigration coalition seeks control of Sierra ClubPosted on March 9, 2004
• Bridging the Labor-Environment Gap
  A vote for exploration of Alaska’s National Wildlife Reserve is a vote… morePosted on January 20, 2004