“At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress.” — Theodore Roosevelt, 1910.
As any student of history knows, there is a relatively limited set of macro issues that ebb and flow in various manifestations over the long-term. This quote from President Roosevelt, a Republican, from 100 years ago seems tailor made for describing the discontent expressed by the current Occupy Wall Street movement underway today. Despite the movement’s excessively grassroots and decentralized focus it is an example of a long-held view that reemerges occasionally in American history — that concentration of wealth among a few and the consequent constricted distribution of resources can get the masses riled.
The economic dislocation being experienced by so many over the past three years is starting to be seen from a perspective not generally voiced during this Great Recession until quite recently. That being the economic downturn is largely the result of intentional manipulation by the richest segment of society (the 1%) to protect their financial interests at the expense of everyone else (the 99%).
This is a dramatic change of view, which may have more political implications in 2012 than economic ones. It represents a possible shift in popular thinking that until now seems to have been dominated by hard right conservative ideology stating government is more to blame for the bad times.
Even astute political observers did not see this one coming. Although the future of the movement is uncertain, now that the Occupy protests are here it is not all that surprising they are occurring. The two Americas made up of the haves and the have-nots seem to be becoming more starkly divided. Many of the nouveau-poor are not just experiencing temporary employment and financial setbacks, they are seeing their worlds turned upside down. The rules have changed, dreams have been shattered, and the new normal is much more insecure and harsher than in the past.
If the discontent was somehow being shared across all classes and economic strata, then the anger might have been more muted. But it is not. Those who have slipped down the ladder are instead seeing the “swollen fortunes of the few” (another TR phrase) being enjoyed by people, many of whom seem to be culpable for creating this mess in the first place.
Although the Occupy protesters can sometimes be seen as having a muddled message and questionable tactics, for example letting their energy be diluted by directly battling police (part of the 99%) more than the 1% they claim to oppose, there are elements of the current political narrative that do seem to be instigating their clamor. Here are three main motivators of Occupy Wall Street that I am hearing from their sympathizers:
- The Bush tax cuts for the rich must be maintained, because they make it possible for the rich to create jobs. Really? These tax cuts have been around ten years. It is hard to say they have been stimulating much job growth as of late.
- The more vigorous and vocal Tea Party movement promotes shrinking government thereby encouraging the growth of the private sector. But for all the wealth generation potential of the private sector they were also the ones involved in selling over-speculative housing-related investments and encouraging bad mortgages. In other words, greed and self-interest can rule in the private sector over the concerns of the commonwealth.
- No one from Wall Street has yet been sent to jail even though the collateral damage to the economy has been far worse than any robbery. This charge has some genuine weight.
Shared sacrifice and wealth distribution appear to be what is called for by Occupy Wall Street. Whether a legitimate demand or not, this belief has become a new variable injected into the national conversation about how the Great Recession began and what kind of America will emerge from its wreckage.