I think its very dangerous, and quite frankly unfair, for the Occupy movement's "99%" to vilify the "1%" as if everyone who falls into that elite income group is (a) corrupt (b) greedy (c) selfish and (d) insensitive and indifferent to the needs and struggles of the poor and middles classes.
Let's get something straight: America is a capitalist nation. Our economic structure is such that there are going to be extremely wealthy people and a helluva lot more who aren't. Those who don't like this system are free to move to another country like North Korea where everyone is piss poor and living under a brutal dictatorship. America's problems aren't about rich vs. poor per se, but about those who care vs those who don't.
The Occupy protesters, in summarily indicting as evil everyone in the 1%, are doing a major disservice to the movement and their long-term cause. At the risk of sounding like a conservative, this broad stroke demonizing of everyone who's rich is class warfare and it needs to stop. There are plenty of kind, decent, generous, very wealthy people who also happen to care about the poor, the sick, the needy, the less fortunate. People who donate millions from their incomes annually to fund all sorts of social, health, education, environmental and child welfare programs, and whose money also goes to political organizations to fight for the little guy. People who've spent a lifetime in public service trying to make things better for those who need help. People who could've financially enriched themselves in the private sector but instead chose meager government salaries. George Soros is in the 1%. The Kennedys are in the 1%. Nancy Pelosi is in the 1% as are Alec Baldwin, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, George Clooney and all the notorious "Hollywood liberals" who are as bleeding-heart as you can get. Their wealth has not stopped them from giving a shit. To the contrary, it's provided valuable resources and a greater platform through which to help. These people are among the best friends and benefactors the poor and middle class will ever have. So it's terribly misguided and counter-intuitive to lump them in the same bucket as the self-serving cads who only care about lower taxes, less regulation and protecting corporate largess.
To be sure, there are many gross inequities in America's economic system which have justifiably been the focus of the Occupy protests. The income gap between the rich and poor is the highest in 80 years. The wealthiest 1% have seen their incomes increase 281% since 1979 while the poor and middle class have earned just 16-25% more. The CEO-to-worker pay ratio is around 350-1. Corporate America has been rewarded with astounding tax breaks while shipping millions of jobs overseas. And no one on Wall Street has yet to be penalized for creating the worst financial crisis in 85 years.
But that does not justify an across-the-board vilification of everyone in the 1%. There's nothing inherently wrong with being rich in America. What's wrong is when you use this wealth to disenfranchise and subjugate those who aren't. There are certainly plenty of legitimate gripes the Occupy protesters can and should be angry about. But it would be very wise not to alienate the very rich, connected and influential people who are among its biggest supporters and who it will need in the weeks and months to come.
Follow Andy Ostroy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AndyOstroy
Occupy Wall Street at Valley Forge
4 Signs Occupy Wall Street Is Right
Letters of support boost Occupy Wall St.
Police break up Occupy Wall St. camp in Richmond, Va., make some arrests for ...
Occupy Wall Street has been occupying my mind
Some neighbors see Occupy Wall Street protest drummers as poisonous, others as ...
Occupy Wall Street arrests in Texas, Oregon
Boehner gets 'frustrations' of Occupy Wall St.
"There's nothing inherently wrong with being rich in America. What's wrong is when you use this wealth to disenfranchise and subjugate those who aren't."
Exactly, Andy. BTW, that is the core issue of every OWS complaint. Thanks for agreeing with us.
You understand, as we do, that wealth = power = control. Every decision that affects our lives is made by someone in power who is either wealthy or controlled by wealthy interests. Every single one.
Our lives are not much different than a Serfs existence, where the Lords make all decisions.
One decision the Lords will never make is to surrender their power and control. They believe their wealth justifies their Lordliness. So they will ooze out just enough trickles to occasionally dampen the masses, but that's it.
And it's really good to know that you get that, Andy. Because it makes no sense for a national protest movement to focus on this wealthy person, or that one. That would diffuse the message that there are only two economic classes...the Lords and the Serfs. So very sensibly, we focus on that. It's called Targeted Messaging. We learned that from the Lords.
You should be proud to be mirroring their party line, stay classy.
Given that "the market" is nothing more than people, the market (left to its own devices) will often reflect the worst in human behavior. Why? Because it only takes a few. If a few do it, the rest will follow (or lose market share).
The recent real estate fiasco is a good example.
Fannie/Freddie didn't start the real estate fiasco. They didn't need to. As a GSE (government sponsored enterprise), Fannie/Freddie were thought to have the backing of the US government. They were the "gold standard" for investors. But Wall Street wanted a share of that huge $4 trillion real estate secondary market (mortgage securitization), and they couldn't offer a government "backstop" like Fannie/Freddie. So how to gain share? Well, they worked with shady loan originators to entice homeowners with lower rates and standards. (Fannie used to have fairly strict loan origination requirements.) And then they sliced and diced the loans into "tranches" (don't even ask). And paid off rating agencies to convert the tranched securities into AAA-rated investments.
As Fannie/Freddie started losing market share, they loosened their standards and started to copy Wall Street. They went big on making Alt A (no doc) loans.
This is the way the market works
Does anyone really think this is good for the 99%?
Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. The Marquis de Lafayette, who was one of the first French aristocrats to call for Republican changes to Louis XVI's government, was also one of the first sent to the guillotine.
Class warfare is class warfare no matter how it is depicted.
As you say, those who do not know history, . . .
The point being that revolutions tend to eat their own eventually.
While we're on the subject of vilification, why is it ok for the whole movement to be vilified over the actions of relatively few?
And I do actually think our "capitalist" system is corrupted, broken, needs reformed, and is the source of many of the major inequities and problems afoot today. In a real "capitalist" system, we would have hundreds of suits in jail with major banks and investment firms bankrupt or FDIC owned; instead they got bailouts and bonus checks and the protesters are going to jail.
None of this means that all of the businesses and individuals within the system are evil but the ones working the system and defending the status-quo are.
You are correct in stating that there are many of the nation's wealthy who are generous and concerned citizens and no one is going after them. So far I haven't heard Pelosi, Penn, Clooney or the Kennedys griping about being held hostage by the 99%.