Sunday, November 27, 2011

OWS's turn

I don't like to say that any particular current trend in politics is something we have never seen before in history. The current animosity and therefore paralysis in Congress, for example, is at least matched if not exceeded by the tensions before the Civil War. The power of the wealthy is something we saw before in the late eighteen hundreds, a running battle all the way up to 1929. On the other hand, I would agree that TV, the internet and even smartphones have had new impacts on politics, at least in my opinion.

The Occupy Wall Street folks want to claim they are something new under the sun. Of course, there was the Bonus Army and Hoovervilles between the Wars. But OWS's interesting approach to political demands is somewhat different.

One way I wouldn't characterize it is with the class card as Jack Kelly does: "Who'da thunk a protest movement composed largely of ignorant and arrogant rich kids with no coherent agenda who deliberately disrupt the lives of working people, urinate and defecate in public, steal from street vendors and assault old ladies and little children would become unpopular?"

Kelly has been alternating between defenses of Republican candidates, attacks on government support of higher education and this week's topic, attacks on OWS and the Occupy movement. Kelly's contempt is well symbolized by this paragraph, the central theme of this week's column: "So when Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said OWS protesters should "go get a job right after you take a bath," he was offering sound advice. But cable news anchors took umbrage."

When I repeated Newt's quote to a friend, she commented that the point was that the protesters can't get a job, and many can't even take a bath. In my opinion, the view of the Occupy movements Kelly wants to portray is of recent college graduates who have moved their kegger downtown, and are simply going wild, stealing food and pretending to be 60's type hippies.

That's easy for a comfortable newspaper columnist who apparently answers not to an editor but rather to the Tea Party to say. But I think that we need to take a closer, more logical look if we want to understand what is really happening.

I mean, we all know that in the last forty years there have been huge increases in productivity due in part to huge increases in technology. We should all also know that middle class (and below)'s wages have not increased by very much over that same time period, sometimes barely keeping up with inflation. These are numbers easily verifiable on the internet. We are the only industrial nation that did not have universal health care/insurance, and even the recent measure passed is in danger of being repealed before it can be implemented. And it was largely the financial sector of our nation that simultaneously caused hundred of millions of Americans to suddenly lose half or more of the value of their homes and/or have their mortgages double or so in cost and for hundreds of thousands of Americans to be foreclosed on, and to set of a worldwide recession where the GNP's of almost all countries went negative for a few quarters, and we still haven't recovered from. Now we have nine percent unemployment (much higher for people with less education) and a President who first tried to find bipartisan solutions with opponents who still call him a socialist and say no to everything.

The first recent US populist protest movement that responded to at least some of these issues, the Tea Party, almost immediately became a tool of conservatives and the super rich. So (for example) despite the fact Tea Partiers themselves often do not have health care or jobs, they rail against the Affordable Care Act and stimulus spending, and concentrate their focus on reducing spending to reduce debt (a strategy that consistently backfires around the world). Some American's have embraced the Tea Party as representing their concerns, but for many the fact the Tea Party obviously wants to control the Republican Party makes clear how little the Tea Party cares for poor people.

Given that is where we found ourselves, it is not surprising (at least to me) that some few ordinary people might take to the streets and literally camp out on the doorstep of corporate America. I think the political naivety claimed by the Occupy movement may be somewhat overstated for some if not many of its members, but I think I get that its concerns have been expressed in terms that ordinary people would understand.

Addressing Kelly's seemingly main charge, that the Occupy movement in general is a magnet for crime, is somewhat complicated. Kelly starts his column with allegations about human waste at Occupy Santa Cruz and OWS; the Santa Cruz allegations are at least credibly disputed. And Kelly's allegations about arrest numbers bear thinking about. These are protests, after all, and protesters do things to attract the attention of the media, which often attracts the attention of the police By the Googling "Occupy Wall Street murders" brought up one account in Oakland of a murder "near" the occupy camp. By that logic, a murder in downtown Pittsburgh could be pinned on Luke Ravenstahl as much as anyone.

Personally, I think that Jack Kelly's contemptuous dismissal of the Occupy Movement does nothing to help PG readers understand things, although it does advance the Republican/Tea Party/conservative's agenda. You may disagree, but how long can we claim the debt is more important than both the recession and the huge income inequity?

13 comments:

Winding down said...

If the shoe fits... let us succeed or fail on our own ..free From govt involvement ... Left and right ...go away...

Occam's Beard Says:
November 27th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
intellectuals, according to Hoffer, “are not a respected or distinguished class within the society

Couple points.

Intellectuals are not respected or distinguished simply because they pontificate, which is what they want. Any respect or distinction must be earned on the merit of their ideas, and since the vast majority of their ideas are self-evidently rubbish, such recognition is not forthcoming. That’s what annoys them.

Second, while “intellectual” in principle refers to those who contribute to society through mental rather than physical labor (and hence would include inter alia physicians, scientists, and engineers), the term is now effectively used to refer to congenitally useless hard-left whackjobs who compete with each other to come up with the most obviously flawed prescription for society. The irony of assorted ne’er-do-wells and cranks telling others how to live is lost on them. Think Lindsay Lohan offering advice on how to lead a grounded life.

EdHeath said...

WD, I think Newt would like to be seen as an intellectual. Is he a congenitally useless hard-right whack-job? well, we know Republicans want ot tell us how to live.

I'll let my writing stand or fall on it's own, with any and all who read it.

Winding down said...

EH

Does there exist a distilled version of your world view a la "The Leviathian". Does the social contract offer opportunity or equality of outcomes? What is the "legitimate" role of govt to tax my toil? For what purposes? Instead of Kelly ... take on the writings of Sowell and Steyn.

Winding down said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
EdHeath said...

WD, I do not chose to address the writings of Steyn or Sowell, nor do I think a discussion of Leviathan or the concept of the Social Contract is relevant to anyone (outside a freshman poly sci class). And the "legitimate" role of the government in taxation is determined by the laws of the land (legitimate - from the Latin legitimus - "lawful").

None of which has anything to do with Jack Kelly's column this week.

Winding down said...

Have a nice day..I do not want to discuss Hobbs ...I am curious about the intellectual underpinning of your view of current events...or do you just function on the surface?And what's on Kelly's mind?

Obviously you want into the pockets of the "rich". So you have a value and you want lawful govt to do the taking...slippery slope. Eh?

Winding down said...

EH

I thought OWS is all about the social contract... Get an education ..training...job..adult independence...or frustration..anger at lack of same..exploitation of the 99 by the 1... So what's the deal?
How do the 99 get their "fair share?" Into the streets..right?

Winding down said...

EH. fyi

NOVEMBER 28, 2011 — STEVEN HAYWARD
MORE GREEN ENERGY FAIL
So, we learned in recent days that Chevy Volt batteries can catch fire in accidents.  Welcome to the Pinto of our time.  Oh goody: another product liability suit in the making. Meanwhile, Google has quietly abandoned an alternative energy program that it launched with great fanfare just two years ago.  Google’s “Renewable Energy Cheaper than Coal” project featured all the hallmarks of the pie-in-the-sky energy mongers, especially the “it’s-just-around-the-corner” trope.  »

Winding down said...

EH. fyi

A post from a commenter at lucianne.com



"IMO, the best source for a psychological profile of Obama is Eric Hoffer's True Believer, especially Hoffer's description of the intellectual. In essence, the intellectual is often a failure in all his/her endeavors yet craves to be recognized, to be seen as a cut above everyone else. For reasons that will be analyzed for generations to come, this absolute nothing of a man became the President of the United States at a time of extreme danger to our country. What makes such a man presume that he is fit for such a position? More importantly, what forces within a society give such a nothing the power of its highest office?"

Winding down said...

EH... Is EH on utube. ? 'member him.?

Winding down said...

Yes he is. Watch all five parts...

EdHeath said...

Look, WD, I am not going to respond to four or five different off topic comments. If you don't restrict yourself to a single comment, then don't complain if I ignore you. You are free to dissect the social contract vis a vis OWS on your own blog (obviously), or go to the Occupy Pittsburgh web site, or comment on Salon or other commercial sites. I will say that while I have not read True Believer, I suspect the commenter you quote is not applying Hoffer's constructs correctly. In any event, I don't care, I don't think a discussion based around Hoffer's ideas applied to Obama is useful.

Winding down said...
This comment has been removed by the author.