Sunday, September 17, 2017

The Opportunity Society?

Several weeks ago, the New York Times held a contest in which they solicited submissions from its readers for a new Democratic Party slogan.  This was in the wake of recent attempts by Democrats to emerge from the debacle of last year's election and re-frame their image and ability to appeal to voters ahead of next year's midterms.  Those attempts, which included at least one notable backfire, ultimately resulted in "A Better Deal," doubtlessly attempting to mimic slogans of earlier eras (New Deal, Square Deal, Fair Deal, etc.).

The results of the Times contest can be found here.  I made a submission, but the Times chose not to print it.  Accordingly, I feel free to reclaim it and offer it in this space.

My choice?  "The Opportunity Society."  This, too, builds rhetorically on an earlier moment of Democratic triumph (The Great Society), but it also re-tools it for today's political era.  It also avoids the deficiencies of "A Better Deal," by refusing to use the Republicans as a reference point for what the Democrats have to offer. Finally, it has the advantage of taking a perfectly respectable word--opportunity--that has been hijacked by hucksters and hooligans, and reclaiming it in a way that should give hope to everyone who hears or sees it.

What do I mean by the Opportunity Society?  Basically, three things.

First, a true Opportunity Society requires an economy that is focused not on the means and methods of bygone eras, but is focused instead on the challenges and opportunities that face us.  The catastrophe brought to the Gulf Coast by Hurricane Harvey should, if nothing else, help us to focus on the nature of those challenges, if not the opportunities to which they can be linked.

As even the business and political leaders in Texas, and Houston in particular, are slowing beginning to realize, we cannot simply "grow" our way out of problems by outsourcing every public need to an increasingly unfettered private sector.  The private sector's first obligation is not to the public, but to itself, sometimes at the public expense.  Whether in Texas or elsewhere in the U.S., we have all walked a long way down the road of privatization, and found a dead end, one defined by the twin dilemmas of climate change and the reduction of traditional resources (i.e., oil for energy).  In the case of Texas, this Times article outlines what "blue skies" for Texas businesses have led to, while suggesting at the same time that the resulting problems can be corrected.

How?  By redirecting public support of the private sector to build a sustainable, green economy, one that develops renewable resources and energy sources, and lives in harmony with the limits of the planet.  I've said this before, and am happy to say it again:  one can have an environment without an economy (just ask anyone stranded on a desert island), but one cannot have an economy without an environment.  The human race has so completely dominated Earth that it needs to spend less effort exploiting the planet, and more effort taking care of it, so that it can help continue to take care of us. Some specifics of what this redirection of public energy would look like is described here.

Second, a true Opportunity Society requires an economy that transcends the traditional employer-employee relationship, with its echos of the master-and-servant relationships of less enlightened eras. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, unions were the primary vehicle for balancing the economic interests of workers and investors.  Today, unions have almost no real clout, after 40 years of largely Republican economic policy.  There's an argument to be made for strengthening the rights of workers to organize (an argument that I'll save for another day), but toward what goal?

Ultimately, the wall between the working and investing classes should be broken down as much as possible, to ensure better management of enterprises as well as a more equitable sharing of economic gains.  Toward this end, public policy should be re-directed toward encouraging the formation of employee-owned businesses, perhaps by making it easier and more profitable for investors to sell their businesses to their employees rather than to outside investors.

Finally, a true Opportunity Society would address the needs of those who are not yet even members of the working class, by giving them the means to work toward joining it.  What I am proposing is what is now being tested in nations around the world, and what has even been endorsed by some conservatives here in this country:  a guaranteed income, one that would be means-tested so as to be cut off just below the level of a living wage.

Unlike our current in-kind systems of social insurance, such as food stamps and public housing, this would give individuals the flexibility to use benefits in way more appropriate to their individual needs.  Part of the income, for example, could be used for job-training, or the completion of a college degree.  A guaranteed income would also benefit the entire nation, by ensuring a minimum level of consumption, and thus be far more effective in keeping the economy on track than tax cuts squirreled away in tax shelters.

So, there it is.  The Opportunity Society.  Any takers, Democrats?  Or anyone else?  Frankly, I don't care who takes this and runs with it.  As long as someone tries.

UPDATE, 9/17/17:  Take a look.

No comments: