Several recent columns make the point (intentionally and unintentionally) that there is a significant shift underway in the way that conservatives view, and talk about, the welfare state and government benefits.

A liberal writer in the Baltimore Sun compares President’s Bush’s talk of an “ownership society” as conservatism’s latest attempt to destroy the welfare state. 

In large part he is correct, though the point of conservatism has never been to delight in the misfortunes of the poor, the sick, the elderly, etc.  Rather, conservatism opposed the welfare state for because (depending on the speaker and the period):

(a)    the welfare state was an unfair appropriation of the assets of some (through taxes) and an unfair distribution of those assets to others (through the “benefits” doled out by the welfare state);  or

(b)   the welfare state diminished individual freedom through its appropriation and reallocation of assets; or

(c)    the welfare state doesn’t work because the reverse incentives created by welfare state benefits remove the incentives for individuals to create wealth and escape poverty.  Taxing the rich removes their incentives to generate more wealth (creating jobs and growing the tax base) and perpetuating the dole removes the incentives for individuals to develop the work skills needed to raise their own standards of living.

Consider Collin Levey’s latest column, commenting on arguments before the Supreme Court in a pending case on the exercise of eminent domain. 

In Kelo v. City of New London, the town of New London, CT wants to use its power of eminent domain to force about a dozen homeowners to sell their properties so that a large swath of land can be re-developed.  The town argues that the area is blighted and must be re-developed in order to benefit the public good.  The re-developed area, says the town, would have shops, better housing, new job opportunities and would benefit the town by growing the tax base.

Not surprisingly, the homeowners argue that they like their homes just the way they are.  And, as Ms. Levey argues, if the state can seize an individual’s assets simply because the state can find a more valuable use for those assets, then there are no property rights left.

But why are property rights important?  What is the link between property rights and the principles of pluralism and self-determination that are the core of the American democracy?  It is hear that conservatives are re-explaining conservatism in a way that is resonating with voters differently than in the past.

First, property rights work.  As the case of school vouchers is beginning to demonstrate, by having the ability to “own” something, the owner takes a heightened interest and a greater care in the asset being owned.  When parents “own” the right to determine where and how their child goes to school, parents not only care more, but they care differently.  They are willing to invest time and efforts into the asset they own (their child’s education) than when that asset is provided to them without a sense of ownership.

The same principle can apply to nearly any other form of welfare “benefit” from health care, to retirement and education.  The welfare state converted what should have been individual assets (health, retirement and education) into hand-outs that arrive at the discretion of the state.  Conservatism does not propose to make Americans less healthy, less secure in retirement or less educated, but rather proposes that Americans should own their health, their retirement and their education.

From converting social security retirement savings from a benefit to an asset, conservatism advances the cause of ownership, thereby converting welfare recipients into property owners.  By empowering parents to determine where their children go to school, conservatism converts passive recipients of state largesse into property owners with a stake in the educational process. 

While these are the two primary fronts on which this war has been fought, there will be (and should be) others.  Nearly every welfare state benefit plan can be converted into an ownership society plan.  Why not replace government-provided health care with individual health spending accounts, empowering individuals to make their own choices and purchasing decisions?  Why not replace government-directed subsidized loan programs with individual investment accounts to empower individuals to save towards home ownership, education, and the formation of new businesses?

Myron Magnet makes this point in her February 25, 2005 piece, The War on the War on Poverty: 

Implicit in compassionate conservatism was the epochal paradigm shift that is now all but explicit. Taken together, compassionate conservatism's elements added up to a sweeping rejection of liberal orthodoxy about how to help the poor, which a half century's worth of experience had discredited. If you want to help the poor, compassionate conservatives argued, liberate them from dependency through welfare reform; free their communities from criminal anarchy through activist policing; give them the education they need to succeed in a modern economy by holding their schools accountable; and let them enjoy the rewards of work by taxing their modest wages lightly--or not at all.

***

And, on top of all that, the overwhelming success of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, which became ever clearer during President Bush's first term, utterly exploded the idea that the hard-core poor were not working because of a lack of jobs. Welfare mothers crowded into the work force; the rolls dropped by roughly half. Not only were their children not freezing to death on the streets by the thousands, as even so wise an observer as the late Sen. Patrick Moynihan had predicted they would, but in fact child poverty reached its lowest point ever three years after welfare reform. Lack of opportunity? Hardly.

***

It's in this context that we should understand President Bush's campaign for Social Security reform. It is part of the large and coherent world view that has evolved out of compassionate conservatism. What has always made America exceptional is limitless opportunity for everyone, at all levels--the ability to find a job, to advance up the ladder as you prove yourself, and to prosper. The poor especially have flocked to these shores for just this chance, and have proved the promise true. A giant welfare state--whether its clients are the poor, the "lower third of the economy," or a cohort of government-pensioned retirees who almost outnumber the taxpaying workers who support them--hampers the job creation that makes all this opportunity possible. President Bush is determined to keep the dynamism vibrant, and to encourage and empower the poor to take part in it, rather than to suggest they are unequal to the task.