"I'm famished!"
All of us, at one point or another, have used these words to signal our discomfort with day-to-day hunger. Chances are, though, that we are far from extreme hunger or starvation when we reach for this phrase. In fact, we are likely minutes away from a satisfying meal.
A friend and mentor of mine likes to point out that the use of the words, "I'm famished," is perhaps the simplest and most common form of moral equivocation among English speakers. It's an innocent hyperbole, of course: the utterer means no harm and almost always appreciates the difference between her mild feeling of hunger and the actual starvation that today grips places like North Korea and the Horn of Africa.
In politics, however, equivocation can be far more pernicious. It can distort and corrupt public discourse, divesting its subject of seriousness and a sense of perspective. It can escalate disagreements over matters of policy and opinion, which can be resolved by recourse to consensual politics, into irreconcilable enmity. Moral equivocation coarsens the fabric of liberal democratic societies.
Take the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, which has spread from New York to cities across the country. For days now, the movement's leaders and their supporters in the liberal establishment have been branding the protests as an American answer to the Arab Spring. "This was absolutely inspired by Tahrir Square, by the Arab Spring movement," a protestor told New York Times editorialist Nicholas Kristof -- who gushingly approved the comparison in his column.
Next came David Swanson, an organizer with Occupy Washington, D.C., who took to Press TV, the state-run organ of the Islamist regime in Iran, to denounce Congress and President Obama, and mark the dawn of an American Spring.
"Well, you have a president [Barack Obama] who is not just continuing these wars and expanding on abuses of civil rights but is introducing job killing corporate trade agreements," Swanson told PressTV's anchor, ranting incoherently. "You have a Congress that now has a caucus to represent the interests of unmanned drones and people feel shut out, 99 percent of us feel shut out and we planned this occupation to begin on Thursday in Washington D.C. months ago inspired by the Arab Spring to mark the ten-year anniversary of invading Afghanistan."
That the outlet he was addressing represents a brutal theocracy with the blood of thousands of dissidents on its hands seemed to have eluded Mr. Swanson.
When the movement arrived in my adopted hometown of Boston, I went down to Dewey Square, across the street from historic South Station, to watch as protestors set up their "occupation." I spoke with dozens of protestors -- mostly smartphone-wielding young hipsters and students. They were invariably eager to draw some vague connection between their activism and the pro-democracy revolts that began in Tunisia and spread across the Arab world.
Yet, watching the event from the sidelines, I was struck by the sharp contrasts between Occupy Boston -- whatever its merits -- and the Arab uprisings.
I did not witness police officers rushing into crowds, wielding batons and truncheons. The Boston police officers I saw were respectfully keeping their distance, guaranteeing the safety of protestors while also ensuring that the occupation does not hinder the economic life of the city.
I did not witness reporters having their cameras confiscated -- and slapped around for good measure. The reporters I saw were interviewing protestors without the interference of some vicious internal security apparatus.
I did not witness protestors being hauled off en masse to God-knows-which-brutal-detention-center by plainclothes operatives. Pro-government paramilitary thugs were not shooting dissidents at point-blank range. In fact, there were no paramilitary thugs to be seen.
So, no, Wall Street is not Tahrir Square. Los Angeles is not Damascus. And to make the comparison is to denigrate the courage of brave young Arab dissidents who took on ruthless dictatorial regimes entrenched for decades. Nor are our financial institutions and the much-detested "top 1%" comparable to Baathist elites.
Boston is not Benghazi.
From both a moral and strategic perspective, then, the protestors would be wise to ground their protest in our basic republican ethos and constitutional culture. Here in Boston, that culture is on full display over at Out of Town News, the legendary Harvard Square newsstand -- from their tent city, just a few stops down the Red line -- which sells hundreds of newspapers and magazines from every corner of the world and across the ideological spectrum. It is on display whenever the Massachusetts General Court deliberates, as it has since the colonial era. It is on display in downtown Boston's magnificent architecture, each building a monument to the power of free societies to unleash human potential.
We are not famished.
Andy Ostroy: The Occupy Wall Street Movement Needs a Clear Set of Demands
Occupy Wall Street: Is It Arab Spring in America?
Occupy Wall Street uses Arab Spring model - Tim Mak - POLITICO ...
Wall Street protest stretches across NY Financial District - CNN.com
Occupy Wall Street: A U.S. version of the Arab Spring? - Yahoo! News
Saying that the Arab Spring is an inspiration to the Occupy movement does not suggest that Boston is Benghazi.
On the other hand, saying that Boston is not Benghazi does not mean that Occupy Boston is unserious. We're trying to change the direction of a superpower here. We're a small part of the picture. I'm not even camped out in front of the Federal Reserve building, let alone putting my life on the line against ruthless security forces. But the issues are serious, nonetheless.
I also fail to see why the lack of lethal threat by the police diminishes the moral force of the protests; we are still protesting inequality and corruption at our own risk.
SarcasticLiberal.blogspot.com
you call on the protesters to ground the protest's message in this nation's republican and constitutional values. many of the protesters are already doing that - wrongly, i believe. the racism, the elitism, the worsening economic oppression of the majority of this country are solidly grounded in those values. an appeal to constitutional republicanism is not an inspiring or an effective rallying cry for those who would make change. for all of the differences, this movement is much more like tahrir square than it is like the temperance movement.
Pfft!
We the People will become the news media. No more Fox news OPINIONATED NEWS or any other opinionated newscast
We the people will bring the news to the people instantly via Facebook, youtube, twitter and the many other social media outlets used by our Walking computer Cell phones that
make us the New News Media as we all have video recorders on our Cell phones
here is a site that lists many of the occupy protests. Occupy Wall Street, OccupyTampa, OccupyBoston, occupyLA, occupy colleges, etc. etc. etc. it will be occupy everything this movement,
and we will be able to watch any protest at a click of a button from this web site and many others. also there will be occupy Berlin, occupy Canada, Occupy Greece. Millions all over the world.
The end to the Lies from the Corporations, the paid politicians and the paid News Media who in fact covered up the Wall Street Crimes of the 2008 Financial meltdown.
No more " Enough is Enough "
here is the link http://occupythisblog.blog.com/
richard
www.SiriusNews.com
www.NakedShorted.com
Our financial institutions and top 1% are comparable to Baathist elites from my perspective. Why? Because the aim of those folks is to become Baathist elites. Your piece, sir, is pointless fluff.
There's nothing wrong with the Right to Assemble and Free Speech but it would be far more credible if the "movement" had stated goals and a perspective.
Oddly, the people who have responded to the AdBusters marketing pitch attracted media coverage that is now filling in the goals for an otherwise leaderless and goalless protest. Its actually the media that has prompted action from the disenfrancÂhised.
In attempting to understand the background planning that sparked the initial protests I ran across this article which is an interesting read.
http://wwwÂ.thenewameÂrican.com/Âusnews/polÂitics/9269Â-big-sorosÂ-money-
Its ironic that the OWS protesters are inadvertently aligning themselves with tyrannical groups who will ultimately marginalize their rights.
If the protesters can permanently distance themselves from people and groups like George Soros, Van Jones, ACorn, Rebuild the Dream, MoveOn, etc. and establish some objectives and leadership citizens trust, they have a very real chance of leveraging the anger we all have for th current mess in WashingtonÂ.
Capitalism and Wall Street aren't the targets -- Washington is the problem.
Ahmari points out the hundreds of papers from around the world, and many fine buildings in Boston. Well, does Boston represent the typical American experience? Take a long drive out of Boston, and you'll see.
Boston is the result of "old money" and elites who have accumulated great wealth and power. And they have established great universities. Some of whose graduates are pretty much anointed into the top 1% from birth.
Wall Street is a financial center which houses numerous exchanges and firms. Some of the firms donate to political campaigns others don't. I believe there's a movement among CEOs this year to eliminate all political contributions.
If you are referring to lobbies and their influence on politics then I'd agree we've got a problem that needs to be solved. Note that AARP is a lobby group.
I'm not sure what you're point is about Harvard and MIT. Both schools attract students from around the globe.
All one needs to do is look at the many, many images of this protest. People sipping Starbucks, using Verizon and AT&T cell phones, eating dominoes pizza... how does one protest against the same institutions that they support with each text, each camera snapshot, each bite of pizza or cup of expresso?
There is irony here and also, a deep hypocrisy. The combination renders this display one for the media/public attention, but nothing more.
Are protesters to be taken seriously only if they wear sackcloth and ashes? And grow their own food on site? I'm glad to see some protests before we have millions of Americans selling apples on the street, like during the Great Depression.
I would in fact say that the supressive powers that partly cause this are more up-front in a dictatorial state then in a "democratic" one as the US.
It is easy to be a wisecrack towards those who engage life to better it for their fellow man and themselves.