iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
GET UPDATES FROM Frances Moore Lappe
 
GET UPDATES FROM Anthony Lappe
 

Don't Think of a Pig: Why 'Corporate Greed' Is the Wrong Frame

Posted: 10/13/11 01:52 PM ET

2011-10-12-corporategreednvwsmall.JPG

Photo credit: Anthony Lappe

As the Occupy Wall Street enters its fourth week, the meta-narrative around the rapidly spreading movement is beginning to take shape. From CNN to Fox News to many protestors themselves, one central slogan is sticking: corporate greed.

During an inspiring visit to Zoccutti Park, we saw abundant posters with slogans like "Another Mother Against Corporate Greed" to "Corporate Greed is the Vampire."

OWS has historic potential. It's already succeeding in raising questions typically buried by the mainstream media. We want it to gain power fast, but much will depend on how its core message gets framed. As linguist George Lakoff argued in his seminal book Don't Think of an Elephant, "frames" have enormous power.

Unfortunately, smashing "corporate greed" is not only limiting, but we fear it's bound to fail. The "we are virtuous, you are evil" message is admittedly, a great way to get people fired up. But does it get us where we need to go?

Recall, by contrast, the Civil Rights movement. Dr. King didn't rail against the racists; he demanded the end to laws that allowed racists to damage people. Going to great lengths not to demonize foes, he called on Americans to live up to our own ideals.

And, on a deeper lever, is greed really the problem?

We don't think so. A greed frame diverts eyes from the rules that have enabled all that nasty greed free reign. Surely our species should know by now that not just a few of us but most of us will behave badly given the right -- i.e. wrong -- conditions. Think only of "ordinary, family-loving" people taking part in mass murder and torture, from the Holocaust to Abu Ghraib to lab experiments in which everyday people -- most, not a small minority -- have acted in ways most of us also find horrifying.

Before the banking debacle, would those who devised and pushed toxic derivatives have scored noticeably worse on a greed scale than any of us? Probably not. It's just that they were set up with precisely the conditions proven to bring out greed and recklessness, big time.

So let's call the crisis what it is: the rise of privately held government.

It's happened in part because for decades Americans have been told, and too many got swept up in the fairy tale, that we have to turn over our fate to a force that works on its own without us: the market. It's "magic," Ronald Reagan assured us, is all we need.

Once we buy that notion, we're done for, for wealth accrues to wealth to wealth until we end up with a society that a 2005 Citigroup report famously dubbed a "Plutonomy," in which the top 1 percent control more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. And an America where inequality is now greater than in Pakistan or Egypt, according to the World Bank.

And we've allowed that tight economic grip to buy political muscle: From warfare to healthcare -- in our privately held government -- corporations sway public decision making via political contributions and lobbying -- now with two dozen lobbyists for every member of Congress. By influencing elections, they also put in place presidents appointing justices to the Supreme Court who, for example, ruled in the 2010 Citizens United decision (which we'd like to rename "Citizens Defeated") unleashing corporate campaign spending.

So we arrive at the hard spot about which FDR warned us back in the '30s:

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism."

As Naomi Klein recently said, the "sky is the limit" for the OWS movement. So let's get be really clear: Our challenge is to go beyond Occupy Wall Street -- we've got to Occupy Democracy. Taking to heart the words of Civil Rights movement hero Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), "democracy is not a state; it is an act," let's mobilize the biggest 99 percent movement America has ever seen. Let's make sexy and urgent the only viable route to Occupy Democracy: Getting money out of politics so the 99 percent can be heard.

We need to tell every legislator in Washington or wannabe that our support depends on their support for Fair Elections Now legislation -- now pending in both chambers. With 70-plus co-sponsors in the House, the law would allow a viable candidate to run for office with public financing and therefore not bought and paid for by Big Money.

But that's not enough. Americans also need a positive, do-able vision of where such a movement can take us. That's why "Take Back the American Dream" seems to be catching fire.

A term that captures what see emerging, and working, because it aligns with who we humans really are, is Living Democracy -- democracy no longer as something done to us or for us but a culture of mutual responsibility we are together creating. It's beginning to show up all over the world, in spirit and in action and in fast-multiplying OWS protests. The opposite of "privately held government" -- its transparency and ongoing dispersion of power are proven to bring out the best in us.

Anthony Lappé is an author ("Shooting War," Grand Central), TV producer and media consultant. He's written for the "New York Times," "New York" and "Salon," among others. He is founder of Invisible Hand, a progressive video production company.

 
 
 

Follow Frances Moore Lappe on Twitter: www.twitter.com/fmlappe

Photo credit: Anthony Lappe As the Occupy Wall Street enters its fourth week, the meta-narrative around the rapidly spreading movement is beginning to take shape. From CNN to Fox News to many protes...
Photo credit: Anthony Lappe As the Occupy Wall Street enters its fourth week, the meta-narrative around the rapidly spreading movement is beginning to take shape. From CNN to Fox News to many protes...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 12
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
11:11 PM on 10/17/2011
Moral capitalism as opposed to evil capitalism.

Our idea is not a new one. The essence of it can be found in a little story published 168 years ago by an Englishman named Charles Dickens.

Moral capitalism takes care of its workers. They are the people who allow you to make a profit. Moral capitalism doesn’t buy votes and politicians, but advocates for itself and its workers for policies and practices that will benefit itself and society as a whole. Moral capitalism manages and conserves resources for use in the future, assuring continued business and supply. Moral capitalism cleans up after itself and avoids destroying life or property with the products it produces. Moral capitalism refuses to sell a dangerous or unhealthy product no matter what profit it may generate. Moral capitalism corrects the mistakes it makes, whether in its actions or its products. Moral capitalism makes a profit, but not so much profit that it is indistinguishable from robbery. Honest profit, tempered by honest and conservative, and most importantly, moral, practices.

1. Pay back the money we gave you. It’s our money.
2. Reform the election process.
3. End the wars as soon as possible.
4. Keep and expand the healthcare law passed last year.
5. End or drastically reduce corporate welfare. Raise taxes on companies that send jobs to other countries.
6. Immediately begin WPA-type programs to put Americans back to work.
7. Reform the tax code.
8. Enforce regulations.
03:46 PM on 10/17/2011
Using the term "the rise of privately held government" instead of "corporate greed" as the problem we're fighting against is like using a politically-correct watered-down version of what corporate greed means to most people. Why shouldn't we call it what it is? Call it corruption in government. Call it plutocracy. Call it fascism. Why pull the wool over our eyes by calling it by a meek and understated term? You're not going to get the same response that is needed.
05:38 PM on 10/17/2011
His point is that you can't fix "greed." There are people who are going to be greedy. The problem is the law allows those who are greedy to exploit the rest of us, and those with money pay big contributions, making the price continue to go up and up, so the candidates must via for those contributions. The result is the candidates are beholden to the donors to get elected, so the people with the money "bought" them. Now the rich "own" the government.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kannbrown65
04:53 PM on 10/24/2011
You can't fix greed, but you can at least point out that, unlike in the movie Wall Street, that greed is NOT good, that the actions it drives are not the 'engine of capitalism' that helps fuel ingenuity and productivity. This is an actual philosophy out there. That the free market always ends up doing good because the greed that drives it means that they compete with each other, and this provides us with good products at good prices. They don't factor in the ability to fix the game, and use 'economy of scale' to drive other competitors out of business, or models of profit that don't involve productivity or products at all, but accounting tricks and speculator perception. This has to be brought forward to explain why we need regulation. Precisely because we 'can't fix greed', we can just watch out for it, and put laws in place to prevent it, and to address it when it causes damage.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Erick Whinbush
02:59 PM on 10/17/2011
Very well written and framed. The Occupy Movement is absolutely necessary, but it must go beyond the protest stage and into direct action through voting and organization.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:29 PM on 10/17/2011
I think OWS should encourage voting, organization AND protest.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mary Eyer
02:40 PM on 10/17/2011
I don't think the problem is greed. Who is to say what is a real need and what is greed? People who are supporting those who own their own airplanes turn around and criticize the protesters for owning iPods.

I think the problem is cronyism between corporations and government that institutionalizes a rigged system favoring the success of the few at the expense of the rest. It's not that bankers are greedy that is the problem; it's that the government subsidizes their greed that is the problem.
02:05 PM on 10/17/2011
I disagree. By stating greed, we say that we are just against the greed, not necessarily against all corporations...cause not all corporations are being greedy. Also, it's not just the corporations doing this....it's those in our government that are greedy, and those in the banks that are greedy. Call it for what it is....greed run amuck!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
angel-girl
02:50 PM on 10/17/2011
Yes, but the approach that this writer advocates is actionable. "Fight greed" is like fighting terrorism. You can't win against an intangible, especially when that intangible is a part of human nature, albeit an ugly part.
07:05 PM on 10/13/2011
How can a successful economy be based on ever increasing profits of corporations? In the system we have now, a company that had $50million a year in business and employed 400 people would be considered a failure if it still did $50million a year in business and employed those 400 for a decade. our "shareholder value" based metric completely ignores the real contributions to society that a company makes, namely products and jobs. That is a deeply flawed economic system. That is Corporate Greed.
03:38 PM on 10/13/2011
Interesting point. It's easy to get sucked into the "Evil Corporations" mindset. To protest effectively the OWS movement needs to come up with a better frame. "Living Democracy?" not bad but it ain't "I have a Dream" either.

I think what most enrages most people is the perception that corporations aren't contributing anything near the benefits they receive by being American corporations.

Perhaps what would have more resonance is to speak to the lack of justice and equity. Those who benefit most should also contribute most.
02:26 PM on 10/13/2011
If you go all the way to the head of the snake, it is still human individuals
who make the decisions. The corporation is only the mask they wear,
the stalking horse they hide behind. The real crime of negligence, which
you might think is purchased, is that their lawbreaking is not held to
account - shielded by corporate legal departments that outgun a lowly
prosecutor and have access to their bosses. It is the lack of personal
consequences which enables "corporate" malfeasance, while the
corporation's puppet masters laugh behind the facade.

Look past the curtain and put a false wizard or two in irons.