Occupy ourselves!
So what is this Occupy Fill-in-the-Blank movement all about? I鈥檝e been hearing the words 鈥渙penness,鈥� 鈥渉onesty,鈥� 鈥渆ngagement,鈥� 鈥渄ialogue,鈥� 鈥渓istening,鈥� 鈥渁ttention,鈥� and 鈥渞esponsibility鈥� a lot. Funny that these are words one often hears in relationship counseling or personal therapy sessions. And that鈥檚 no coincidence. Like the situations when we are having troubles in our relationships鈥搊ur interactions with others鈥搊ften we learn that the first place we have to look is within ourselves. What鈥檚 our own role in this mess of a relationship? We may want to pull our hair out over the bad behavior of others and blame them for our troubles, but usually at least part of the blame lies within ourselves, in our own part of the interaction and how we did or did not react to what the 鈥渙ther鈥� did or did not do.
And that鈥檚 why I started thinking that the Occupy Fill-in-the-Blank movement should start with 鈥淥ccupy Ourselves.鈥� I wrote about it this way in my latest column in the 海角大神 Science Monitor (the online version now available here)
What started as the 鈥淥ccupy Wall Street鈥� demonstration has turned into an 鈥淥ccupy fill-in-the-blank鈥� movement 鈥� with the blank being anything we blame for our own economic troubles.
The main target seems to be the vaguely defined 鈥�1 percent鈥� 鈥� that tiny minority of the wealthiest individuals and biggest corporations, the only ones those with economic and political power seem to serve. So the Occupy movement targets the big banks 鈥� the culprits that got us into the financial crisis. Or the millionaires, because income inequality is at an all-time high. Or Congress, the lobbyists, and others in power who have failed to do good. All of them 鈥� it鈥檚 their fault.
It鈥檚 not that the outrage isn鈥檛 justified. Policymakers catering to the oil and gas industry, to Wall Street, and to the rich and powerful deserve part of the blame. So do banks, ratings agencies, regulators, and others who set the stage for the financial crisis that triggered the recent ballooning of America鈥檚 debt. And as the wealthy have gotten wealthier, policymakers have chosen to only reduce their tax burdens.
Meanwhile, policymakers seem to care much less about the poor. The share of Americans living in poverty has steadily increased over the past decade to more than 15 percent 鈥� the highest percentage since 1993 and approaching where it was when LBJ launched the nation鈥檚 鈥渨ar on poverty.鈥� How is that fair?
But we also have to recognize that our economic problems began long before the financial crisis and that the boundary between the wealthy 1 percent and the 99 percent that the protesters claim to represent isn鈥檛 so crisp. Those big subsidies to the oil and banking industries also benefit the rest of Americans through lower gasoline prices and cheaper credit. And the majority of American voters went along with politicians who proposed very expensive deficit-financed tax cuts and deficit-financed prescription drug coverage, even though our young people 鈥� the very core of the Occupy movement 鈥� are the ones who will be stuck with the bill.
We all had a role in this, not just that 1 percent.
If there is a 鈥渃hange we believe in,鈥� we can鈥檛 just complain about the status quo. We have to spell out the better life we want and the trade-offs we鈥檙e willing to make to get there.
These are difficult trade-offs we each need to contemplate. Doing better for the other 99 percent of us requires real money, and that money has to come from somewhere. Are we willing to steer more federal funds to the most effective forms of spending in terms of both short-term stimulus and longer-term economic growth 鈥� policies that would also benefit Americans more broadly 鈥� and away from the less effective, less beneficial forms?
Would we be willing to receive less generous benefits from Social Security or Medicare or have our tax deductions reduced? Would we be willing to let go of our portion of the Bush tax cuts rather than insist that only millionaires and billionaires need to sacrifice theirs? And most important, if we want our 鈥渙ccupying鈥� to catalyze real change, would we be willing to speak up loud and clear about our willingness to make these specific trade-offs to our policymakers?
In the end, it鈥檚 easy to occupy Wall Street and protest what鈥檚 wrong. Far harder is to occupy ourselves with the tough choices that could move America away from its crisis path and toward surer footing as the world鈥檚 leading economy.
That鈥檚 the protest message we need to hear.
Some of the same idea comes through in this interview I gave to (a phrase I accidentally coined while sitting in the Milwaukee airport on the phone with Kyle; apparently sleep deprivation sometimes inspires my creativity):
Diane Lim Rogers, Chief Economist at the fiscally hawkish Concord Coalition, made similar points about the more reckless economic policies of the past decade: Much of the distaste with both Washington and Wall Street comes back to fact that DC is simply unwilling to change course.
鈥淭he difference is that during the Clinton years the rising tide was lifting all boats,鈥� Lim Rogers said in an interview with TPM. 鈥淟ow-income households were still doing better. Even then, the rich did really well, despite their taxes being raised.鈥�
But what鈥檚 different now is that income inequality isn鈥檛 a political tenet of the left: it鈥檚 truly hurting people. Lim Rogers said the poverty rate is actually of more concern than the rich doing better given the circumstances.
鈥淭he outrage is not that the rich are richer,鈥� she said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 that the poor have gotten poorer 鈥� the inequality has become bipolar.鈥�
Which could help explain why when OWS [Occupy Wall Street] provided the spark, many Americans didn鈥檛 discount the movement as disaffected liberals who have no real point: it鈥檚 a real issue borne out by the numbers鈥�
While Gallup showed that only , other polls have shown . Because, as Lim Rogers points out, the movement has centered on a more inclusionary focus.
鈥淎s the definition of the rich keeps shrinking, the movement feels like it gets more spirited,鈥� she said. 鈥淥WS is getting the support of most americans, because how can you disagree with the fact the top 1 percent has done well, but that poverty is increasing. I鈥檓 not surprised that OWS is doing well, and I think it鈥檚 justified. What Americans may not have a grasp of is that we are all part of the problem, because we continue to support politicians that support these policies.鈥�
My point is that even those of us who are not in the top 1 percent of the income distribution may actually benefit from and at least implicitly support the policies that are perceived as 鈥渢hose policies that cater to the top 1 percent.鈥� And the policies that we think are letting down just the bottom 99 percent are actually letting down all 100 percent of us. It鈥檚 not ever going to be as easy as neatly sorting out the blame vs. the burden into the 1 vs. 99 percent. We鈥檒l have to sort it out within each of ourselves first.
(Like those 鈥減rotesters鈥� in the photo appear to be doing, actually. Just Say 鈥淥m.鈥�)
