On the Occupy Movement

As 2011 draws to a close, the financial districts of out greatest cities find themselves occupied.  Not by troops carrying weaponry, but by large groups of people who feel disenfranchised by our economy.  These people blame the pillars of capitalism, banks and major corporations, for their woes.  They also feel that our elected representatives have become nothing more than lackeys of these powerful interests.  Their battle cry is powerful and incredibly inclusive: “We Are The 99%”.

Beginning with a mere 1000 protesters in New York’s Zucotti Park on September 17^th, the protests in New York swelled to 40,000 just two months later with similar protests occurring in every major US population center.

There is good reason for their anger.  According to the Congressional Budget Office, incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275% between 1979 and 2007. During those same years, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%. Over the last 30 years, the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive. From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% while their average tax rate reduced by 37%.  In 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000 with a minimum income of $343,927.  In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. This means that the 20% of Americans with the largest incomes own 85% of the country's wealth, and the bottom 80% of the population own only 15%. 

The most recent recession, which started in 2007, saw the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grow from 34.6% to 37.1%, and the share owned by the top 20% of Americans grow from 85% to 87.7%.  During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. During that period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.

New York Times columnist Anne-Marie Slaughter described pictures on the "We are the 99" website as "page after page of testimonials from members of the middle class who took out loans to pay for education, took out mortgages to buy their houses and a piece of the American dream, worked hard at the jobs they could find, and ended up unemployed or radically underemployed and on the precipice of financial and social ruin.”

The conservative right has been quick to call these protesters bums.  Fox news has attempted to paint them as homeless troublemakers and drug addicts.  Fox went so far as to put up a picture of a bunch of hypodermic needles that the NYPD had seized from the medical tent at Zucotti park, claiming it was proof that they were a bunch of drug users.  They failed to mention the “drugs” found with the hypodermics were antibiotics, insulin and other injectables used for medical purposes.

Respect for the heartfelt position of others, rational discussion and willingness to compromise are core requirements for finding solutions to widespread problems within a society.  The numbers quoted here show unequivocally that there is something wrong within the system.  The only discussion should be how to fix it.

The far right sees all the occupy protesters as bums who just want to take a share of the pie they don’t deserve and didn’t earn.  To be fair, there is also a radical element on the left that thinks dismantling the corporations and the banking infrastructure and ruining every “rich” executive will somehow make everyone live better.  Both sides need to pull away form these extreme viewpoints.

The most common criticism of the occupy protests seems to be its lack of message concerning solutions.  The movement has not thus far promoted specific legislation or politicians.  The truth is, this may be its greatest strength.  What they have done is start a national debate about income disparity and the role of banks and corporations in our society.  Dialogue leads to popular awareness, and that is never a bad thing.

On Political Parties

FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON'S FAREWELL ADDRESS 1796 QUOTED VERBATIM:

Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally.

This Spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind.—It exists under different shapes in all Governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.—   

  The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.—But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.—The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an Individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.    

  Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of Party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.—       

  It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.—It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the Government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country, are subjected to the policy and will of another.              

  There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the Administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty.—This within certain limits is probably true—and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party.—But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged.—From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose,—and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it.—A fire not to be quenched; it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

My Political Manifesto

Abortion

Abortion is a tragedy every time it occurs.  It is never a good thing.  On this I agree with republicans.  Where I differ is in what to do about it.  It has been illegal before and the results were even more tragic.  The truth is we must do everything we can to make it unusual, unheard of.  We must reach the point where no woman wants one.  Not through lack of access or any kind of intimidation, but just because there is no good reason to have one.  Making it illegal will not get us to that point.  It will only make matters worse.

No Child left behind

This program should have been called underperformers get left behind, because that is the result.  Children are held back until they give up, because they underachieve.  Schools, in order to keep their funding, are creating the uneducated underclass of the future.  There is no replacement system for them that would give them certification in usable job skills.   These students are simply being made to eventually drop out so the school looks better.  The program has failed to do what it was supposed to do:  Improve the public school systems of this country.

Health Care reform

I can only stand in awe of the vilification of the Health care plan that was passed by President Obama and the Democrats.  I’ve done a lot of research on this subject.  Most people who are opposed to it seem to believe all of the mis-information that was disseminated by its opponents.  Things like death panels, huge raises in premiums and long lines for services.  This subject calls for much more space then I am going to give it here.  After exhaustive research, I became convinced that socialized medicine as practiced in Canada and much of Europe reflects the system we must eventually adopt.  No one when threatened with a serious illness should stand to lose his home and property because of the cost of their treatment and medications.  Making this cost a common cost on society in general is not going to break anyone.

The Patriot act and Homeland Security

In light of the 9/11 attacks it is clear that a number of things must be done to keep us secure from the global terrorist threat.  The challenge is to implement things that make sense in light of the risk without sacrificing personal liberties.  The patriot act has failed this challenge miserably.  Creation of secret warrants and searches are not the way to combating criminal behavior of any kind in an open society.

Enforcement of US Immigration laws

US immigration laws should be totally enforced.  The northern and southern borders should be made impassable by every logical method that is feasible.  There is a need for guest workers for agriculture, and a strict program should be set up to allow everyone that is already here the chance to prove they are contributing to our society and obtain guest visa’s.  Once that limited time program is completed, all others should enter only by legal means.  We do need to make sure that legal means of entry are available, but carefully regulated.  People that are already here though need to be treated humanely and given an opportunity to redeem themselves on a case by case basis.  An otherwise law abiding hard working honest person whose only crime was running to America for a better life should be given an opportunity for redemption.

Free Trade

The most important thing we need to take care of in any trade agreement is ourselves.  I would like the standard of living to increase in third world countries, but not at the expense of my house, car and job.  Trade agreements must not cost American manufacturing jobs, or cause widening of the trade deficit.  Free trade should be fair trade, but on this we need to serve our self-interest.  The fairness should be to us.

Gay Marriage

The conservative right tells us that marriage should be between a man and a woman.  The majority of the American people once shared this view, but recent polls show they no longer do.  The need here is to give gay and lesbian couples the rights the rest of us have with their life-long partners.  These are the rights as next of kin for medical decisions, inheritance etc.  They simply should be treated no differently than anyone else.

The lay of the land

As a small child we are taught right and wrong.  We are told not to lie, steal, and cheat.  We are told to play well with others and to value other human beings.  Yet, despite what should be a universal set of values, we arrive at voting age with views on a wide variety of issues that are widely and even violently diverse.

Huge proportions of the population describe themselves as being either conservative or liberal.  The stronger they identify with these labels, the more they seem to vilify those that oppose them.  For those at the extreme ends of the political spectrum there is no listening to the arguments and reasoning of their opponents, the very idea that they should consider the merits of their opponent’s argument or compromise and “meet them half-way” is viewed as sacrilegious and traitorous

I write this not simply as an argument for civility, compromise and deliberation, but as an expose' of political radicalization.  I intend to explore why it occurs, how it occurs, and how to pull the public away from its poisonous venom. 

How does someone become radicalized left or right in the first place?  The answer is you learn it from your parents and community. 

If you grew up in a union household, or if your parents were immigrants or a minority, you would have grown up in a world where Republicans were damned for laws that limited the strength of labor unions or laws that toughened immigration restrictions or where a republican cut to an urban assistance program made leaving or improving an inner city ghetto more difficult.  Democrats tend to support tough labor protection laws, the rights of minorities and immigrants, and through that have earned the loyalty of these groups.

On the far right in the USA, the psychology of politics is often tied to a deep Christian faith. In most ways this is a good thing.  Jesus taught his followers to “love thy neighbor”, “turn the other cheek” and “be a good Samaritan”.  His teachings promote love and honesty.  In this regard they are to be highly valued.  But there is one teaching that is particularly strong in fundamentalist Christianity, that when applied to politics is absolutely poisonous.  They are taught not to question to absolute truth of their dogma, their religion or their bible.  Absolute fidelity to your religion should theoretically be a good thing.  But when the same sort of unswerving belief is applied to political views in a democracy, the effect is catastrophic.  Democracy is after all based on the principal of compromise.  To participate completely in a democracy one must be able to preface al of ones beliefs with the statement “I could be wrong, but…”.

Democracy depends on compromise and pluralism.  A lawmaker should do the right thing not just for his base or his constituency, but for all the people.  Laws should be crafted to please the greatest number of people.  The views of the opposition must always be heard, listened to, and their desires incorporated into laws whenever possible.

A concept that stuck with me from political science classes is “tyranny of the majority”, the idea that a deliberative body, like the house or senate, would force a law through even though a sizable minority were vehemently opposed to that law.

When you look at the demographics of the Democratic and Republican parties, you see some real differences in the kinds of people that make up their membership.  Republicans tend to be white, rural, white collar and from the south and mid-west.  Democrats tend to be multi-ethnic, urban, blue-collar and from the northeast or west coast. 

Now that I have laid out the lay of the land as I see it, I will lay out specific views and solutions In my posts over the coming days.