Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Tea Party vs. Occupy Wall Street


The recent rise of the protest movement known as Occupy Wall Street has caused some mixed feelings. While the movement is disorganized, diffuse, and does not have a central message, it has evoked a strong reaction in the public. People that trend to the left are sympathetic to their opposition to big corporations or ultra-rich. The unemployed, the underemployed, and those who work hard, but see their salaries and benefits slipping every year feel justified in being angry at the 1% of the population that has the bulk of the wealth in this country. The conservative right are scornful on one hand, calling the protesters ignorant or misguided, and fearful on the other hand, saying they feel that these protests will spiral out of control.

Police in riot gear have already broken up protests in Denver, and police in New York City are increasingly trying to control or break up the protests there. Some compare this to the reception the Tea Party movement of two years ago got with the public. Primarily against big government, they were successfully co-opted by Fox News sponsorship and Republican Party courtship. What started out as a revolutionary movement has basically become the far-right wing of the Republican Party, with a seat at the table in Government and a National Organization.

What people fail to understand as they look at these two movements with very different complaints and issues is that the core impulse that spawned the movements are basically the same thing.

Both movements' primary complaint is against the size, power, and corruption of their chosen nemesis. It's Big Government versus Big Corporations. The problem is not how big these institutions are, the problem how some of these institutions have gone rogue. They are unmanaged, selfish, and malevolent to society's health and long term goals. They are short sided and corrupt, seeking to get on top, amass ever greater power and money, then rig the game so that they will always be at an overwhelming advantage.

The actual problem that this country, and to a similar extent, the world is embroiled in, this fear of big governments and big corporations, is not two separate problems. This unacceptable mess large institutions have created is two sides of the same coin. They are inextricably joined at the hip. Big corporations fund and corrupt big government, and big government then provides them legal cover for the nefarious activities of corporations. Who lobbies Washington and funds political campaigns? Special interests intent either in getting a business advantage or in having government either subsidize them or leave them alone with rules and regulations. Who gets elected? Not principled popular people that go to Washington with ideals that cannot be swayed, but fickle politicians that court the biggest supporters, then do nothing to interfere and everything to help the special interests that fund their elections. Once they have tilted the playing field to their corporate partners' advantage, they often leave government and go straight to work for the companies they already served while in office.

The real problem with this setup is not with the size of the institutions or the amount of money, the problem is a lack of control and accountability. The problem is that no moral and ethical institution is powerful enough to challenge and correct these imbalances. The system is rigged against those without wealth, power, or influence. Frankly, those without wealth, power, or influence are disorganized and could not be effective in making any changes to those with power. The supreme court has ruled that corporations have the same rights as people and campaign donations equals free speech. This has given a green light to the people at the top that are exploiting the system to the hilt. It gives society the feeling that things are spiralling out of control and that there is no way to correct this and rein it all back in.

The other underlying problem is that these big entities are doing what is good for themselves, and not what is good for society. They are often doing what is good for themselves at the expense of society. If these massive institutions were looking out for the common good, no one would begrudge them any of their wealth or power. Indeed, there are many organizations that have reached their pinnacle of development and are doing a great deal of good in the world. There are also organizations that have lost their way and come back to their senses. But the incentives in the business world and in politics are all aimed to push the system further in the direction we have been going. The inclination by any power player is to use any dirty trick in the book or their competition will roll right over them.

These giant institutions seem to be short sighted and unaware of the effect that they are having on society. Dan Carlin, in his Common Sense podcast, made the comparison of recent protests all across the Western World to the protests in the Middle East known as the Arab Spring. It is surprising how little is known (or I should say how little is reported and emphasized in the media) about these movements that are cropping up everywhere. Most people probably could not answer a Jeopardy game style questioning of why there were recent protests in the following countries: Greece, Spain, England, Italy, Israel, or India. If you can find information about these protests online, it will surprise you that something this big is not already in the news every night.

My fear, when I think about this rising unease and this escalating willingness to take to the streets to protest is that the problems being pointed out in these protests are real and they are not being addressed. The lack of government and corporate responsibility is going to push people towards socialism and away from capitalism. The masses need to be heeded if for no other reason than to let the powerful stay in power. If the large institutions that are in power today would only be responsible and share power and wealth with the people, and if they would concentrate on doing what is best for the entire society in the long run, there would be a chance that the people will not rise up against the powerful. If they crack down on protesters and double down on their policies, they could very well push the people to take more drastic action and disrupt society. While it feels good to get out in the street and shake your fist when you are mad about an injustice, it is not good to tear down these large institutions. In the end, stable, peaceful, non-violent society comes from big strong governments and jobs, wealth, prosperity, and technological advances and innovations come from big strong corporations, and these are what makes life a continuous series of improvements. These benefits must be channelled wide throughout society and shared in order to be preserved.