Some call it progressivism. I prefer to identify it as socialism. Whatever the label, its seemingly apparent progressives are far more left than Jerry Falwell is right.

I recently attended an academic conference in Milwaukee where the panels discussed the role of government in society. The meeting, unsurprisingly, exposed one of the glaring weaknesses of the progressive movement — an overly intrusive government.

Given this finding, it's easy to view Madison as the poster child for this faction.

Though the days of "Fighting Bob" La Follette and New Deal paternalism have long past, progressivism is indeed alive and well in our state capitol. But history demonstrates that ideas are never permanent. And there is a solution to the problem facing this city: the creation of an ownership society.

President Bush has described on numerous occasions his desire to return this nation to the principles established by the American founders and encompassed in an ownership society — a society that stresses, in the Lockean tradition, individual responsibility, liberty, and private property. Bush has spoken of privatizing social security, school vouchers, and health care savings accounts, among others. These issues have one thing in common: non-morally reprehensible choice.

But perhaps in addition to Mr. Bush's increasing interest in an "ownership society," the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Kelo v. New London has brought the values of individual liberty and property back into the political spotlight.

Discourse on this subject is unfortunately absent in this city. I'm not surprised, given one of this city's rags, The Capital Times, proclaims itself as "Wisconsin's progressive newspaper." Nonetheless, there's hope. As Justice Louis Brandeis aptly wrote, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."

Recent actions taken by the Madison Common Council confirm this city is far from an ownership society. Progressives are responsible for the city's exceedingly broad smoking ban, an increase in the city's minimum wage — which forced the state legislature to raise the state's wage, and the adoption of mandatory inclusionary zoning, requiring affordable housing in almost all new housing developments in the city.

Government handouts and entitlement programs have always been the progressive's steadfast answer to our society's problems. With the recent tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, though, it became outwardly apparent such responses don't work. Those who suffered most were not necessarily the economically disadvantaged, but those who relied on the government for their basic necessities — housing, food and health care to name a few.

Given this reliance, it should have been anticipated many would have cried foul when the federal government did not immediately provide the handouts and assistance they were accustomed to in the days after the hurricane made landfall.

The progressive actions of the federal government before the disaster only precipitated the mayhem present in New Orleans. The government decided to partake in the insurance business by providing subsidized flood insurance to those living in the Big Easy — a flood prone area. Many of these homes and businesses would not have been built in the flood plain without this assistance.

Nonetheless, why should we be concerned with creating an ownership society in Madison? Individual responsibility is a good starting point. During grade school, we were often taught that we must own up to our own actions and subsequently accept the consequences — whether good or bad. Shouldn't this principle apply to adults, too? When people take responsibility for their persons and property, they take better care of that they have control over.

Wisconsin's welfare system provides an opportunity for citizens to take individual responsibility for their income. The program has the objective that everyone is capable of doing something, and if you can work, you must. Therefore, people become less reliant on government and are able to return to society as productive citizens individually responsible for their subsistence.

Madison's progressive tradition goes against the grain of this successful program.

An ownership society promotes liberty. A free society is necessary for citizens to have control of their lives and property. Regrettably, the city's smoking ban does nothing more than stifle the principle of individual property rights by preventing a legal activity from occurring on private property. In keeping with the ownership society's promotion of choice, Madisonians should have a choice — an individual choice to enter an establishment where smoking is allowed or prohibited.

In a column posted on the progressive website FightingBob.com, Mayor Dave Cieslewicz remarked, "I want Madison to be the most progressive city in America." He continued, "Cities are becoming the factories of progressive policies and Madison is becoming one of the leading producers of those policies in the Midwest."

Instead of worrying about the machinery needed to garner the "Most Progressive City" title he so desperately desires, Mr. Cieslewicz should be concerned with the problems both within and beyond this city's 76 square miles of unreality. If he did, he would see many of the troubles caused by a progressive society.

Though Progressive Dane and its ideas continue to maintain a strong hold on this city, an ownership society can and should eventually come to fruition. All that's needed is a little bit of sunlight to begin.

Darryn Beckstrom ([email protected]) is a doctoral student in the Department of Political Science and a second-year MPA candidate in the La Follette School of Public Affairs.