The essential elements of liberty have been employed on Wall Street “since 1792, when merchants gathered around a buttonwood tree at the foot of Wall Street to trade securities.” The idea of total freedom without restriction has been a large part of the American Way, and the bedrock of classic liberal capitalism, since the days underneath that buttonwood tree so long ago. Now, over 200 years later, that laissez faire manifest destiny is being challenged by an opposing view of liberty in America.
The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement began in New York on September 17th, 2011. Now, just over a month later, OWS has raised almost three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000), and has, according to their website occupywallst.org, spread to over 1,500 cities globally. OWS is a loosely defined, horizontally organized movement who, in their own words, “is fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession in generations. The movement is inspired by popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, and aims to expose how the richest 1% of people are writing the rules of an unfair global economy that is foreclosing on our future.” OWS says it is “employing the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to restore democracy in America. We use a tool known as a ‘people’s assembly’ to facilitate collective decision making in an open, participatory and non-binding manner.” The Occupy Wall Street movement’s stated goals, while vague, are representative of the anger a large percentage of Americans and others around the world feel towards the global financial industrial complex.
In a speech given October 6, 2011, President Obama is quoted as saying, “I think [OWS] expresses the frustrations that the American people feel: That we had the biggest financial crisis since the great depression, huge collateral damage all throughout the country, all across main street, and, yet, you’re still seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on abusive practices that got us here in the first place.” According to a recent poll taken by TIME Magazine of 1001 adults, a majority of Americans, 54%, view the OWS movement very favorably (25%) or somewhat favorably (29%). Of 787 polled who were familiar with the protests, 86% believe “Wall Street and its lobbyists have too much influence in Washington,” 79% say “The gap between the rich and poor in the United States has grown too large,” and 68% hold the idea that “the rich should pay more taxes.” However, even given all these similarities in political opinion, only 30% of those familiar with OWS foresee the protests will “have a positive impact on American politics,” with 56% thinking it would have a small impact, and 9% believing negative repercussions would result. The difference in numbers of those who view the movement favorably to those who are convinced the movement will be beneficial to society shows the separation between Americans’ economical convictions, and who they think will enact the change they are looking for. Regardless of a majority of Americans belief in success, the OWS has been able to turn enough heads in the state of New York, and elsewhere, to receive support from a large collection of diverse individuals.
As the days pass and protesters continue to express their discontent for the financial practices of American banks and regulators in recent history, many important figures have begun to voice their agreement with what those occupying Wall Street are standing for. Some have even joined in. As Peter Wallsten reported in the Washington Post, “Labor groups are mobilizing to provide office space, meeting rooms, photocopying services, legal help, food and other necessities to the protesters. The support is lending some institutional heft to an organization that has prided itself on its freewheeling, non-institutional character. . .” In that article, Richard Trumka, the president of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), is quoted as saying, “Our members have been trying to have this discussion about Wall Street and the economy for a long time. . .This movement is providing us the vehicle.” Undoubtedly, the labor unions aren’t lending a hand for no reason, as the article continues, “in return [for help], Occupy activists are pitching in to help unions ratchet up action that targets several New York firms involved in labor disputes with workers,” disrupting business flow and supporting protests and pickets inside and outside large and small companies that are at odds with unions around New York. Matt Sledge of The Huffington Post reported, “The Transit Workers Union Local 100’s executive committee, which oversees the organization of subway and bus workers, voted unanimously [September 28th] to support the protesters. The union claims 38,000 members.” Although the labor unions were some of the first to stand with OWS, they certainly aren’t the only ones coming out in support.
Intellectuals such as Larry Lessig (Professor of law at Harvard Law School, director of the Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics at Harvard University, and founder of The Ruth Stryker Project) and Paul Krugman (Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and an op-ed colomnist for The New York Times) have voiced their views on the occupation. While visiting OWS recently, Lessig said, “. . . if this movement can be identified as a fight against the corruption that our political system has become, then it has the potential to bridge the left and right in a way that can be much more generative, much more important.” Krugman was quoted as saying, “There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear, but we may, at long last, be seeing the rise of a popular movement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people . . . What can we say about the protests? First things first: The protesters’ indictment of Wall Street as a destructive force, economically and politically, is completely right . . . .” Lessig also said directly of Wall Street, “Look at the way which money from Wall Street bought regulatory infrastructure that led to the collapse of 2008, and even worse, after 2008, the same money blocked any reform of this regulatory infrastructure. It seems the top tier of the white collar, ivy league educational system in America fully supports the protesters anger towards those controlling the financial sector.” Dr. Cornel West, a Professor at Princeton, had this to say when he visited the protesters in Manhattan recently, “It’s impossible to translate the issue of the greed of Wall Street into one demand, or two demands. We’re talking about a democratic awakening, you’re talking about raising political consciousness, so it spills over, all parts of the country, so people can begin to see what’s going on through a different set of lens. And then, you begin to highlight what the more detailed demands would be…” West continued about the cries of the impoverished, “You got to understand the genius of Bob Marley. He called his group ‘The Wailers’ not ‘The Whiners.’ The wailers were persons who cry for help against the context of catastrophe. When Wall Street cried out for help they got billions of dollars; working people, poor people are crying for help. Whining is a cry of self pity for sentimental disposition. That’s not what’s happening in poor America, that’s not what’s happening in working class America…” It seems the top tier of the white collar, ivy league educational system in America fully supports all that the OWS stands for, fighting against the business side of the same white collar, ivy league tradition. With this divide between two groups of well educated, affluent citizens growing more and more each day, and no answers being formed for reconciliation between financial institutions and the growing protest, it didn’t take long for politicians from both sides of the aisle to offer advice and arbitration.
President Obama spoke again about the Occupy Wall Street movement in a segment aired on ABC News, “I understand the frustrations that are being expressed in those protests.” He went on to say, “The most important thing we can do right now is those of us in leadership letting people know that we understand their struggles, that we are on their side, and that we want to set up a system in which hard work, responsibility, doing what you’re supposed to do, is rewarded. And that, people who are irresponsible, who are reckless, who don’t feel a sense of obligation to their communities and to their companies and to their workers, that those folks aren’t rewarded.” Obama points towards the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (passed July 21, 2010) as his response to the damage caused by the financial sectors in the United States. Dodd-Frank is a sweeping financial reform bill that created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and changes numerous regulations and reforms over most financial systems in the U.S., from derivative exchanges to banks’ interactions with consumers. In comparison to Obama’s views, Herman Cain, the GOP primary front runner, said about the OWS protesters in an interview with the Wall Street Journal’s Alan Murray on The Big Interview, “Don’t blame Wall Street, don’t blame the big banks, if you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself!” He went on about his beliefs concerning outside influences on American’s affluence or poverty, “It is not a person’s fault because they succeeded; it is a person’s fault if they failed. And so this is why I don’t understand these demonstrations and what is it that they’re looking for.” Later, at the Bloomberg/Washington Post GOP debate, Cain changed his stance. He then told those at OWS to blame President Obama, “They have basically targeted the wrong target. . .It should be against the failed policies of this administration, not Wall Street, is where they should be protesting.” Fellow GOP candidate, Rick Santorum, however, appears to be taking the dubious actions of Wall Street’s past, and the ideals of the OWS, a bit more seriously, as The Huffington Post found out. Santorum said the OWS had a “legitamite claim” to be angry about the Wall Street bailout, “. . .you create a moral hazard in the future when you allow people who did things that are clearly illegal and immoral to get away with it and be compensated richly for it.” Santorum, however, disagrees with creating more government control, saying his answers, “go in a different direction.” Here, after laborer unions, intellectuals, and politicians weighed in, some of the wealthiest Americans obviously decided it was time for them to join the discussion.
According to a reserch paper published by UNU-WIDER, 1% percent of the global population control about 40% of global wealth. The OWS movement has used this idea of 99% of the global population working for the monetary gain of the top 1% as the basis of their major concern with the global economy. With this idea in mind, many so called “1%ers” have announced that they too agree with the ideals of OWS. Warren Buffet, billionaire entrepreneur and business mogul ended an op-ed piece for The New York Times with the quote, “My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice,” after suggesting to the 12 member congressional national debt “super committee,” “I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.” He went on to say, “. . .for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.” But Buffet isn’t the only wealthy person speaking his mind. As The Australian reported, “A group of 16 French billionaires, led by L’Oreal heiress Liliane Bettencourt, wrote to their government to make a special contribution to assist with French national finances. Not to be left behind, a group of rich Germans also called for a special wealth tax.” The extreme wealthy aren’t the only ones agreeing with a raise in taxes for the well off, about 100 people have shared their stories and asked the government to increase their taxes on a very interesting blog, “We are the one percent. We stand with the 99 percent.” These men and women of white collar society have seen the cries of protesters and average Americans and decided to ban together to show America that they too think it’s time for a change in this country’s financial system. With all of these different groups people coming together to support the ideas of the occupy movements, it doesn’t seem like the focus on these ideals will dissipate from the collective mind any time soon.
The generalized ideals of the OWS has a full range of supporters from all demographics of the country, from the unemployed to the white collar worker, the uneducated to the well educated, and the impoverished to the wealthy. These supporters, however, haven’t come forward with any serious ways to change the country’s financial system. With no infrastructure or speakers to propagate the convictions they are discussing, OWS has also has come under fire from the heavy hitters of the GOP, Christian leaders such as Pat Robertson, and even comedy shows such as The Colbert Report. The OWS movement runs by consensus, a way of gauging group agreement based on a show of hand gestures. The Occupy Wall Street Journal declares, “It [consensus] also means that a compromise on minor points becomes easier; the process toward creative synthesis is really the essence of the thing. In the end, it matters less how a final decision is reached—by a call for blocks or a majority show hands—provided everyone was able to play a part in helping to shape and reshape it.” This process sounds like any other way of democratically reaching agreement that has been going on for thousands of years on large and small scales all around the world. The problem isn’t necessarily with the system in the United States and elsewhere, but with the general renunciation by a large part of the country to be actively involved in politics and the lack of officials that have been elected by the voting population to enact changes in society that are positive for the advancement of the global community at large. The hurdles the Wall Street protesters are facing of revamping the legislative and executive branches of government in order to enact the style of change in society they are discussing are of a colossal form. Traditional voting is such a constant for the country and point of security for many Americans, that without embracing the idea of a republic, Occupy Wall Street will have a long, hard road to achieving whatever specific goals they lay out in the future. As Noam Chompsky points out, even libertarian socialist/anarcho-syndicalist societies, form a republic in some way. Support (and funding) can get you a lot of places in America, but, without specific plans to change the American Government, laws dictating how global financial systems operate, personal accountability in the global population, the mass media, or the eternal power of greed, Occupy Wall Street is preaching to a choir of disillusioned Americans without offering any solutions. Hopefully, they will be able to solidify a few in the days to come.
Southern Connection 