IS 100% OF SOCIETY STILL A CLASS?:

The New Investor Class and Its Critics (Ramesh Ponnuru, 03/17/2005, Tech Central Station)

Most Republican strategists -- and certainly the ones at the White House and the Republican National Committee -- believe that the growth of the investor class is pulling American politics toward the free-market right and will continue to do so. A desire to accelerate that process is one of the reasons President Bush wants to create an "ownership society" in which people save and invest to meet their families' health and retirement needs.

But there is resistance to the investor-class idea among conservative intellectuals. Some detect in it a crude economic determinism reminiscent of Marxism. Some consider it a distraction from appealing to the working-class social conservatives whom they consider the Republican party's real growth constituency. But the criticisms of the theory either misunderstand it or confuse its strengths for weaknesses.

The theory holds that people who become stockowners -- either directly or indirectly through 401(k)s and mutual funds -- grow more likely to have, and to vote on, free-market political views. Behind the theory stand some plausible arguments, suggestive historical coincidences, and survey data.

Pro-free market is the least of it. The theory is that it will make them less dependent on government, which is both good for them morally and deadly to the statist project. Likewise, in becoming invested in society they will have a vested interest in its stability, health, and future. It is a generally conservatizing idea.

Indeed -- and here's where the true stumbling block for many conservatives will come -- it is worth establishing an upfront entitlement program, like the one Paul O'Neill is proposing, that will sock away money while people truly are dependents, so that we can get rid of the current system, which makes them dependents as adults.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 17, 2005 8:36 PM