Why Occupy?
I'm nowhere near the top 1% of American income earners, but I don't resent them either. I do not assume they are dishonest or corrupt. Furthermore, I don't see the point of “occupying.” I certainly reject the worst comments I've heard—violent overthrow, canceling all loans, anti-Jewish rhetoric, killing. Some things occupiers have said are just stupid. Print your own money? Really!
One of the things that distresses me most is the class warfare rhetoric. I have no doubt that we have our share of elitist wannabees who would happily become America's nobility, but we remain one of the more classless societies in the world. Capitalism has made this country one of the freest because the freedom to turn ideas into wealth is at the very heart of social freedom. The utopian dreams of a world of wealth without that is truly a dream; whenever it's been tried, the results are neither free nor prosperous. A wealthy “class” implies “old wealth,” passed from generation to generation, but much of the American rich are newly rich, people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, or perhaps your favorite athlete!
Does that mean there are no crooks among the wealthy? I wonder if the occupiers understand that there is no human system of government that can thoroughly prevent corruption. One thing that the honest study of human history, psychology, sociology, or government consistently reveals is the persistence of what some call sin, what philosophers have called “man's inhumanity to man.” Bad people will do bad things, and some of them gravitate to concentrations of power, money, and prestige. Of course, if some of those bad people in government helping to keep the crooks from getting exposed or caught, that makes things more difficult.
The United States is one of those rare instances in history where something better followed a revolution. France didn't fare so well, just a few years later, and I doubt the so-called “Arab Spring” will produce much in the way of freedom or prosperity, although I'd love to be proven wrong. Today, we have it so good, generally speaking, that we often do not appreciate what we truly have, especially when we talk so freely of having more.
Except no one is talking of us having more as a nation, but of taking from one group to give to another (ignoring for the moment those who just imagine more money magically appearing from somewhere). Let's face it; to most people, the “American Dream” is do well financially. Some aiming higher than others, some have better ideas or a greater degree of genius, while others are satisfied with a secure but modest income. All of those exist in this system. Are some disappointed? Yes, some are. Do some want more but choose not to work for it. Yes, they are plenty of them, but even they fare better here than in many impoverished nations of the world. Our poor often live like wealthy people in some of those places.
Why are so many of the occupiers angry? They seem to suggest that they have personally been victimized by rich people, a bank, or Wall Street. Apart from criminal corruption or collusion with the government, which may have a broad general effect on the economy, most of the 99% have not been the target of a specific crime by the wealthy. As far as the general condition of the economy, the current government cannot be ignored nor can the 15 trillion dollar debt it has increased. Spending money we do not have, taxing and redistributing wealth, punishing the successful, and colluding with the corrupt harm all of us, but a general demonstration is a poor method for dealing with those who are responsible.
I find the contrast between the occupiers and and the tea party folk illustrative. The tea party movement seems to have been far more spontaneous, and it was aimed precisely at the problem of over-spending, increasing debt, and higher taxes; yet many acted like these people were kooks or worse. On the other hand, despite the kookiness of some of the occupiers, they get praised. Among the worst offenders in this inconsistency is the media. Why? The tea parties have moved with enthusiasm and commitment into political action while some of the occupiers talk of overthrowing the system. For all the talk of being democratic, it is the occupiers who sound like revolutionary Marxists. Of the examples of that sort available—the USSR, China, Cuba, Venezuela, none have made life for the ordinary folk better, and all have kept power in the hands of a few tyrants. Of those, China has begun to use capitalistic ideas to launch that nation into economic success, but individual freedom still suffers under the iron hand of communist government. Who would want that here?
So I remain skeptical of the Occupy Wall Street movement with all its spin-offs. I doubt that, at the core, it is spontaneous, and many who have become involved spontaneously are the ones who have the weirdest or most extreme ideas. I think their camping on public land requiring local governments to clean up after them, when those same local governments are strapped for cash, is irresponsible (At least the Tea Parties cleaned up after themselves). Destructive activity is even worse, mostly likely harming those in the 99% more than the 1% anyway I strongly oppose any talk of revolution. I have little respect for those who hate and stir up anger against a group of people where only some may being doing wrong. I'm a free market capitalist; I reject Marxism in any form, big government domination, but also crony anything, capitalist or socialist.
However, I will support those specific grievances and concerns through the avenues we offer in our constitutional system of laws—enforcement of existing law, the creation of new laws if necessary (but not executive regulations which only give power to the President), and candidates who advocate for, changes we need and then keep their promises (I'm thoroughly tired of empty an dishonest rhetoric). I'll not be camping out in a perpetual demonstration, though I might participate in a gathering to let my elected representatives know what we the people want. Beyond that, I will vote, write letters, and work to persuade others of what I believe, efforts I consider much more useful and effective than occupying.
[I am pleased to have constructive feedback. However, I will delete snarky remarks or personal attacks. I'm interested in personal conversation and documented support of opposing opinions, as much as possible. I have not linked to anything, thus far, but I expect to update this piece, perhaps with the input of my readers. Thanks. JRW]
Comments