About a month ago, protests seemed to begin spontaneously in New York City’s financial district, targeting corporatism, inequality and the financial crisis from a few years ago that spread to other parts of the economy. But the origins of Occupy Wall Street can actually be found four months ago when the Canadian anti-capitalist activist organization called Adbusters began to suggest “occupying” Wall Street. The group, New Yorkers Against Budget Cuts, jumped on the idea in August and began planning to begin the protests in September. After the first week, the protests began to grow and spread to cities across the country, and have moved beyond the control of the organizations that started the movement. Some have called it the left’s answer to the Tea Party, but I think it will take more time to see if these protests actually become as much of a force in elections as the Tea Party has been.
The problem with Occupy Wall Street and other “Occupy” protests around the country is the different messages coming from the movement. The group has tried to remain leaderless and has so far avoided making any official specific demands. That void has allowed labor unions to attempt to use the protests for their own agendas. Because there are no official demands, we have to take what most of the people protesting seem to be demanding.
The biggest issue they have seems to be with wealth inequality and corporate favoritism by government, all based in economic problems everyone is facing due to the recession. They call themselves the 99 percent of Americans and say the 1 percent of richest Americans have too much wealth and power. Aside from these general things, many, but not all, protesters seem to have an entitled, anti-capitalist mindset. Some have demanded rewards such as forgiving student loan debt. That’s just a nicer way of saying taxpayers should pay even more for their choice to go to an expensive school, because public universities are already subsidized by taxpayers.
Many of the protesters also support greater economic equality and blame greed for corporations sending jobs overseas. It’s ironic that the same people who would demand higher taxes and regulations on companies in the United States are complaining that these jobs were sent overseas during the last few decades.
Adding to the irony, outsourcing to third world countries and globalization in general have contributed to lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, which is generally considered to be $1 or $2 per day in much of the world. Although many Americans are suffering from the economic situation that’s unfortunate but will get better over time, these protesters seem to think much poorer parts of the world don’t deserve to have jobs. In a recession, only time and smart government policy will allow for job growth.
Despite my criticisms, there are legitimate and reasonable points made by people who are part of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Americans can all relate to being opposed to selectively bailing out corporations, government no-bid contracts with well-connected companies, the revolving door between lobbyists and government and general frustration with the lack of economic recovery. If Occupy Wall Street defined its message and avoided the far left ideas, it could appeal to many more people, including the already-established Tea Party.
