It is way too early, and perhaps even a bit crazy, to see an American Spring in the growing protests on Wall Street. Yet. But there is no doubt that if there is one place in America that these protests should begin, it is there, and it is now.
Writers by the dozen have lamented the influence that Wall Street exercised over Washington throughout the 1990s, leading up to the great collapse of 2008. A multi-billion dollar lobbying campaign, tied to hundreds of millions in campaign contributions, got Washington to erase its regulations and withdraw its regulators. One statistic summarizes it all: in 1980, close to 100 percent of the financial instruments traded in the market were subject to New Deal exchange-based regulations; by 2008, 90 percent were exempted from those regulations, effectively free of any regulatory oversight.
But there is nothing at all surprising in that story. The spirit of the times was deregulation. The ideology of Democrats and Republicans alike was regulatory retreat. No one should be surprised, however much we should lament, that politicians did what the zeitgeist said: go home -- especially when they were given first class tickets for the ride.
What is surprising -- indeed, terrifying, given what it says about this democracy -- is what happened after the collapse. That even after the worst financial crises in 80 years, and even after the lions share of responsibility for that crisis had been linked to finance laissez faire, and even after the dean of finance laissez faire, the great Alan Greenspan, expressly confessed that it was wrong, and that he "made a mistake," nothing changed. A president elected with the spirit of Louis Brandeis ("[We have to stop] Wall Street from taking enormous risks with 'other people's money'"), who promised to "take up that fight" "to change the way Washington works," ("for far too long, through both Democratic and Republican administrations, Washington has allowed Wall Street to use lobbyists and campaign contributions to rig the system and get its way, no matter what it costs ordinary Americans"), and who was handed a crisis (read: opportunity) and a supermajority in Congress to make real change, did nothing about this root to our financial collapse. The "financial reform bill" is the reason the English language invented the scare quote: As every financial analyst not dependent upon the corruption that is Wall Street has screamed since the bill was passed, financial reform changed nothing. We are more at risk of a major financial collapse today than we were a decade ago. And the absolutely obscene bonuses of an industry that pays twice its pretax profits in salaries are even more secure today.
How could this possibly be? Never in the history of this nation have the agents of financial collapse so effectively avoided a regulatory response to that collapse. How is it that now they have not only avoided reform, but have effectively cemented their Ponzi scheme into the core of American law?
The protesters #occupy(ing)WallSt are looking for answers to that question. They should look no further than the dollar bills that they are taping to their mouths. The root to this pathology is not hard to see. The cure is not hard to imagine. The difficult task -- and at times, it seems, impossibly difficult task -- is to imagine how that cure might be brought about.
The arrest of hundreds of tired and unwashed kids, denied the freedom of a bullhorn, and the right to protest on public streets, may well be the first real green-shoots of this, the American spring. And if nurtured right, it could well begin real change.
In my book, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress--and a Plan to Stop It
These protesters should see that they are that one striking at the root. They should understand that our system has been corrupted by money -- even if the Supreme Court refuses to call it "corruption," and even if political scientists are unsure about whether their regressions can show it. And they should recognize that until this root is hacked, the weeds of this corruption will continue to destroy this democracy, and this nation.
Now conservatives are eager to insist that our framers didn't give us a "democracy." They gave us, they say, "a Republic." And so they did. A Republic -- by which the framers meant, as Federalist 10 makes clear, a "representative democracy." By which the framers expected, as Federalist 52 makes clear, a Congress "dependent upon the People alone."
But ours is not a Congress "dependent upon the People alone" -- or even mainly. It has instead allowed a different dependency to grow within its midst: a dependency upon the Funders of its campaigns. And so great is that different and conflicting dependency that even the worst financial crisis in three generations can't break their obsession with the fix. Neither party dares to cross Wall Street, since both parties know they could not win control of Congress or the White House without Wall Street's money. So they feed the addiction, and ignore the real work that they should be doing.
#OccupyWallSt needs to teach America this lesson. It needs to speak to the wide range of citizens who believe it. You don't have to be a Marxist to rally against the corruption that is our Congress. You don't have to be Dr. Pangloss to believe that people who don't share common ends might nonetheless have a common enemy.
This corruption is our common enemy. So let this protest first #OccupyWallSt, and then #OccupyKSt. And then let the anger and outrage that it has made clear lead many more Americans to #OccupyMainSt, and reclaim this republic.
For if done right, this movement just may have that potential. What the protesters are saying is true: Wall Street's money has corrupted this democracy. What they are demanding is right: An end to that corruption. And as Flickr feeds and tweets awaken a slumbering giant, the People, the justice in this, yet another American revolution, could well become overwhelming, and finally have an effect.
Follow Lawrence Lessig on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lessig
Currently, however, there are no checks on corporations, no requirements that they also function as good citizens like the rest of us, and no consequences of note when they misbehave. All they have to fear, truly, is the ire of Wall Street speculators and an occasional stockholder mass uprising (as HP experienced with Fiorina's mismanagement).
So. Unless the corporate entity is radically overhauled, we will continue to suffer its depredations. We sought to restrain bank credit card abuses; rather than take a loss, they've simply added fees and charges elsewhere. The beast itself needs to change.
Yes I am willing to acknowledgÂe that rights are unalienablÂe (DeclaratiÂon of IndependenÂce not the ConstitutiÂon). Of course I brought this up a few posts back. Amendment IX remember? So, if the people discover a here to fore unrecognizÂed right, Like the right to protect the commons of America for future generationÂÂs. Or the right to of the people to protect their government from being subverted by the rich for their personal gain. Then that right is recognized as unalienablÂe. And of course should be automaticaÂlly amended into the ConstitutiÂon.
Of course functionalÂly this is not what happens. Amendment IX simply allows for redress of grievances following from a violation of civil rights, even if they are not pre-existeÂnt in the document.
Yes civil rights are unalienablÂe. But until they are explicitly spelled out in the ConstitutiÂon there is no legislativÂe enforcemenÂt of the government or the private sector.
BTW these unalienablÂe rights generally aren't discovered until they are violated.
+++++++++++++++++++
I just brought this up to the top purely for convenience, Russ. Pardon the cut and paste.
It's much like your right to marry whom you wish. You don't have one. But you DO have an unalienable right to Liberty - which gives you the freedom to marry whom you wish, but only so far as your intended agrees to marry you, and marrital status allows (as in, not married already). The same with a "right" to have children. No such right exists. Whether you have a child or not is not up to government, but to "nature and nature's God". But you have a right to Liberty - which gives you the freedom to try to have a child.
"Yes civil rights are unalienablÂÂe. But until they are explicitly spelled out in the ConstitutiÂÂon there is no legislativÂÂe enforcemenÂÂt of the government or the private sector."
Please elaborate, as this statement seems to reflect muddled thinking.
You left off the last part of section 2 Russ, and that's precisely where my point is.
"...by appropriate legislation."
Section 2 of the amendment governs the government, not the private sector, empowering "Congress and the Several States" to create LAW that enforces the amendment. The private sector is not subject to the Constitution, it is subject to the LAW. The power to create LAW is subject to the Constitution.
Which goes back to my original statement: The ConstitutiÂon isn't intended to impose checks or balances on the private sector, Russ. It is the law that governs governmentÂ; it is not the law that governs the people, the private sector, or even corporatioÂns.
Section 2. does not "empower the government to enforce the amendment on the private sector", it instead "empowers the government to create legislation to enforce the amendment".
It's a subtle distinction, but an important one. It is not the private sector that is governed by the Constitution, nor is the Constitution intended to govern the private sector. It is the government's authority to create LAWS that is governed by the Constitution, and the intent is to limit that authority to a very short list of powers.
Have the Justice Department hire Elliot Spitzer to head a squad of untouchables to remove any crooks he can find from government the banks, Wall Street, Main Street or wherever they are discovered.
Produce change by getting rid of the IRS and all of it's special interest rules that kill job creation and replace it with the FAIR TAX H.R 25 S.13.
Reinstate Glass-Steagle, repeal Grahm-Leach-Bliley, repeal the unlimited Fannie and Freddie Christmas guarantees , audit the Fed, perhaps even eliminate the Fed, make AIG's records available for public review, repeal Obama Care and add a government option to compete with private insurers and care providers for patients by offering free care to everyone asking for government funded care which would be given from low cost, government operated, VA style better patient outcome, hospitals for civilians, all paid for with a national sales tax, no insurance, no copays, free period, complete birth to death healthcare including free medications, dental and eye care, this could save $1trillion annually from the $2.6trillion spent last year and prevent private health insurers and providers from bankrupting us, our states and the Federal Government, and last cut the special interest red tape that is preventing us from having drastically lower cost oil, gas, energy and food.
But Obama was elected as a change agent. He said time and time again he would try to fundamentally change the way Washington worked. And he has done absolutely nothing to that effect. First thing he does: Health care reform. Well, that's lovely. And sorely needed. But it's not changing the way Washington works, dislodging special interests, and ending corruption. That's what he said he wanted to do. That's why I supported him over Hillary. But h has shown himself to be a conventional Democrat. I voted for something more than that. I suspect Lessig did too.
The number one issue in my view is we have taxation without representation. I will do whatever I can to get behind the single most important thing we can do which is to make special interests groups illegal.
Get back to fundamentals and make "TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION" our mantra. Without fixing that nothing will change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism:_A_Love_Story
Bring a wide screen and electric out to your protest so everyone can watch it, or share your IPODs/PADs
It's not anti-corporate, it's anti Wall St. It's anti greed. If you can't see that you're part of the problem.
There's a forest in them trees, ya know?
It's time to reevaluate some of the fundamentals of society. Is being wealthy really the supposed to be the mark of success. Should profitability trump all other considerations. I have a word for completely unregulated capitalism "WAR".
What gives me hope is the fact that people are not stupid. The true power rests with the common man not the elites. It has always been this way and the wealthy ignore this fact at their peril.
They are about to wake the sleeping giant and reap the whirlwind.
We are on the brink of a fundamental revolution in civics. A time of fewer politicians and more direct voting by the people (Participatory Democracy). A time of transparency and honesty in politics. But first we have to pass through the eye of the needle.
Captialism without restraints imposed by societal customs or mores is a very dangerous thing, and we've seen what damages a "self-regulating" market, with no external restraints, causes to society and even to the entire world, with banksters colluding with each other to steal everything not nailed down. They are no different than a bunch of nine year olds left alone with a jar full of cookies: When noone's watching, they'll take whatever they can get away with.
It gives me an opportunity to go a little deeper into what causes people to act this way.
It's what I like to Scarcity Thinking. This is the feeling that there isn't enough to go around. So, in order to have enough I need to deprive someone else. People in America are secretly afraid someone with less is going to take what they have. And we secretly want to take what rich people have. This leads to hoarding be it dozens of cats or billions of dollars.
The opposite of Scarcity Thinking is Abundance Thinking. The feeling that there is plenty to go around but only if we all cooperate for the betterment of everyone.
In a society based on Abundance Thinking honesty, integrity, and ability take precedence over profitability, class, and status.
The truth is there is plenty of almost everything to go around for the next thousand years. All we need is the wisdom to use the resources wisely.
Do you guys even think about this stuff before you post it?
Just ignoring for a moment the fact that the government is We The People, the Constitution is a living document and it is what the people make of it. It has been amended 27 times since it was written and the 18th amendment establishing the prohibition of alcohol certainly did impose a check on the private sector, both private citizens and corporations. The Constitution was last amended in 1971 lowering the voting age to 18. If the people decide it needs to be amended it will be amended.
You might want to do a little research before you post here.
And to review how this web site and it's writers have treated the Tea Party as compared to these individuals. Evenhanded? Not even close.
The protestors are largely kids, and their actions haven't killed anyone nor wasted trillions in national treasure. The formulators of our foreign "policy" are some of our "best" and "brightest" who still don't know what we're doing ten years on in the ME.
So, if you're going to rank on the protestors for being "unfocused," please be consistent and do the same toward our Solons in the White House, Congress, Pentagon and State Department who, ten years on, are still cluelessly fumbling about trying to find a reason for continuing our bankruptlying expensive presence in the Middle East.
I would think that they would want the influence of corporate america on elections to go down. So new legislation ending superpacs would be a good place to start.
And legislation to speed up the government process, such as banning filibustering, and no blocking to vote on legislation also seems to fit into the wishlist.
Of course a more reasonable taxcode - where the wealthy and corporates do pay their dues - and not get away with nothing.
This kind of debate would make much more sense to me then the endless bashing of either or both sides of the political isle.
Filibustering has been a part of politics for ages and both parties have used it effectively. The practice isn't going anywhere.
On the tax code front, I could support a flat tax with no personal deductions for individuals on every dollar above the official poverty line. A flat tax on businesses on their first dollar of NET profit; that's after operating expenses (the money it takes to make money).
Term limits? Six years; one and done. That would help reduce pandering and buying of votes.
But even though filibustering has been used by both - it is detrimental to good government in my view.
Term limits for whom? And why would you want to send away a good congressman/senator? We can always vote them out...and with no corporate/union influence - should not be much pandering going on any more, right?