Balancing Power

Picture, if you will, a public gathering place within a city. A park, perhaps, or maybe a square. Within its confines, picture an assemblage of run-of-the-mill citizens who are visibly upset with the situation be it economic, religious, or governmental. The powers-that-be are present, too, in an attempt to prevent the situation from escalating. These powers represent the ruling few. Some are police while others are military. Some work for “legitimate” governments while others enforce the will of dictators. In many cases, things get out of hand and force is used against the demonstrators. Arrests, orders to disperse, and the like are followed by pepper spray, water cannons, rubber bullets, or worse in a ratcheting up of the effort to maintain control.

Cairo? Tripoli? Syria? Maybe Greeks or Italians? What about New York City or Oakland or any number of American cities supposedly besieged by Occupy forces? “Hold on!”, you say. “You can’t compare the U.S. with the rest of the world!” Why not? The shoe appears to fit at least to the point where we can draw parallels.

I’m not here to discuss the pros and cons of populations gathering to protest anything they find onerous. I’m looking at the thin line between order and anarchy and the degree to which those who hold power will go to maintain it. The Occupy folks have been ordered out of parks and other venues in the name of security and public health. Similar tactics have been used in other countries and I can’t help but see these tactics, regardless of location, as nothing more than a rationale to clamp down on a growing voice of disenchantment to preserve the illusion of control.

Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Greece, and Italy have seen recent changes in the hierarchy of their respective governments. All have come about because of severe unrest within their citizenries. Some were relatively violence free while others saw significant bloodshed. Either way, they all prove one point: an orderly government relies significantly upon the cooperation of those being ruled. After all, the masses represent an overwhelming majority and without their acquiescence, upheaval is unavoidable.

And the ruling few know this, too. That is why their response to any protest that appears to be gaining strength escalates exponentially.  A show of force is the only way to defuse a situation that may well lead to changes in the halls of power. Are the powerful few paranoid? Not necessarily, because they fully realize that their hold on power is tenuous at best and requires a degree of public approval.

While our political system seems more organized and orderly than most others, don’t for a minute think that our leaders wouldn’t resort to harsh measures to put down a so-called uprising. Is there a difference between tearing down tents in Tahrir Square in Cairo and in New York City’s Zuccotti Park or San Francisco’s Market Street? Remember Kent State or Chicago’s Democratic National Convention? No, we’re not that much different, folks. Maybe luckier, but not much different.

When the rulers become disconnected from their constituencies, disillusionment follows. In this country, we are seeing a growing chasm between the haves and have-nots and those thought culpable suffer no apparent consequence. The Occupy movement started with a small group of folks interested in bringing Wall Street to account for the sins leading up to 2008. It has grown, though, to include individuals who, for one reason or other, feel abandoned by those chosen to lead and have subsequently lost hope in the American Dream. Without that hope, more and more will find that demonstrating in the street provides an outlet to frustration that might otherwise be vented through more orderly channels in better circumstances. And with that comes sudden, messy changes that may not be in anyone’s best interest.

We are faced with a growing population of frustrated folks who see no use in pursuing a better life through conventional means. And our leaders will resort to ever-increasing means of control in an attempt to convince us that all is well and that “they” can control the situation. Why are the police not tearing down tents pitched outside retail stores in anticipation of Black Friday? Could it be that those campers represent more reasonable positions of economic stimulation? Why should that matter? Aren’t security and public health concerns universal? Does it matter one whit what the purpose of encampment might be?

We’re not in a real good place, my friends. And falsely believing that our leaders have more noble goals than those on foreign soil will not do us much good should things go on unresolved.

The Seeds of Reform

The “Occupation” protests are picking up steam and I am left wondering what brought them about and how the end game will be played. My first question is who, exactly, is participating?

Without a doubt, some are anarchists, plain and simple. They are in favor of dismantling the financial system with no vision of replacing it with anything at all. And they may be the most vocal and, as such, bear the greatest responsibility for getting the ball rolling. That’s OK, you know. The Viet Nam War protesters were initially comprised of ultra-doves, if you will. Their vision of no war, never, nowhere was overly simplistic, but played a major role in spreading the movement to virtually every nook and cranny of the country.

There are others coming to realize that the middle class, or at least what we’d come to call the middle class, was shrinking. In fact, the perceived earning power of this group has stagnated or decreased over the past decade or so, but was hidden through the creative financing tools of home equity loans and such. Now, deeply in debt and/or underwater on their home loans, they’re now seeking some retribution from the powers-that-be (in this instance, the financial industry).

Added to the mix are students and recent college graduates that can find no jobs and no hope in a stalled economy. These are the least noble of the demonstrators, I’d say, because they seem to feel entitled to a good job at a good wage simply because they went to college. If only they were the first to find the field they chose four years ago is no longer offering the greatest promise or reward. In light of their “me first” frame of mind, though, it should come as no surprise that they’ve joined the fray based on some semblance of unfairness.

Regardless of the position held by any single demonstrator, is the collective angst justified and well-aimed? I’d say so. Big bank bailouts have had little or no effect on the outlook of the average American. All the while, their balance sheets have returned the the robust figures of 2007. And the gap between the have’s and have not’s has never been greater. But now what?

First of all, are you still giving the big banks your money? Some of us are tied to them through mortgages, etc., but some are not. And those that aren’t should move their funds to smaller, more responsible institutions. (I left B of A after their refusal to account for bail out expenditures and am now wed to Wells Fargo. Yes, they took a bail out, too, but only when it was forced upon them. Uncle Sam didn’t want us to be able to identify the weaker sisters, it seems.) 

The only way to change the shape of the financial industry, though, is by legislating greater restrictions and closer oversight. They’ve proven that they are unfit to police themselves and there are no other options absent instilling some sort of corporate conscience into the upper echelons of management. (Good luck on that one.) Which means a degree of political activism is required from each demonstrator and anyone sympathetic to their plight.

I’ve recently suggested not voting for any incumbent nor donating any money to any campaign in an attempt to weed out career politicos and the influence that big donations ensure. Another option is not voting for any candidate running for a particular office should you find none acceptable. This is kind of the “none of the above” approach, but would speak volumes if, say only a third of the voters cast a vote for a particular position. Don’t confuse this with not going to the polls in the first place. By doing that, you’ve simply identified yourself as a non-participant and that’s the last thing you should want.

Another option is to step outside the traditional political parties and their trappings and log on to AmericansElect.org. This movement is perhaps the best chance we’ve seen in  a long time to alter the way we choose a president. If you are the least bit put off by “politics as usual”, you owe it to yourself to at least drop by the website for a look-see. What’ve you got to lose?

Should the occupiers grow tired of assembling and simply go home and sit back down in front of their nearest electronic display, then their heartfelt demonstrations will have been for naught. Like it or not, the only solution to the banking fiasco is through our political system and the only way to change that is from the ground up. Grass roots efforts will always change systems far faster than relying on any group of folks enjoying the fruits of the status quo.

So let’s all hope that something special is germinating and let’s all take pride in assisting  its growth and maturation by getting reacquainted with asking questions and doing our best to change the way Washington does business. Occupying Wall Street and other venues is a good start, but to be successful we must also occupy the voting booth.

The Seeds of Reform

The “Occupation” protests are picking up steam and I am left wondering what brought them about and how the end game will be played. My first question is who, exactly, is participating?

Without a doubt, some are anarchists, plain and simple. They are in favor of dismantling the financial system with no vision of replacing it with anything at all. And they may be the most vocal and, as such, bear the greatest responsibility for getting the ball rolling. That’s OK, you know. The Viet Nam War protesters were initially comprised of ultra-doves, if you will. Their vision of no war, never, nowhere was overly simplistic, but played a major role in spreading the movement to virtually every nook and cranny of the country.

There are others coming to realize that the middle class, or at least what we’d come to call the middle class, was shrinking. In fact, the perceived earning power of this group has stagnated or decreased over the past decade or so, but was hidden through the creative financing tools of home equity loans and such. Now, deeply in debt and/or underwater on their home loans, they’re now seeking some retribution from the powers-that-be (in this instance, the financial industry).

Added to the mix are students and recent college graduates that can find no jobs and no hope in a stalled economy. These are the least noble of the demonstrators, I’d say, because they seem to feel entitled to a good job at a good wage simply because they went to college. If only they were the first to find the field they chose four years ago is no longer offering the greatest promise or reward. In light of their “me first” frame of mind, though, it should come as no surprise that they’ve joined the fray based on some semblance of unfairness.

Regardless of the position held by any single demonstrator, is the collective angst justified and well-aimed? I’d say so. Big bank bailouts have had little or no effect on the outlook of the average American. All the while, their balance sheets have returned the the robust figures of 2007. And the gap between the have’s and have not’s has never been greater. But now what?

First of all, are you still giving the big banks your money? Some of us are tied to them through mortgages, etc., but some are not. And those that aren’t should move their funds to smaller, more responsible institutions. (I left B of A after their refusal to account for bail out expenditures and am now wed to Wells Fargo. Yes, they took a bail out, too, but only when it was forced upon them. Uncle Sam didn’t want us to be able to identify the weaker sisters, it seems.) 

The only way to change the shape of the financial industry, though, is by legislating greater restrictions and closer oversight. They’ve proven that they are unfit to police themselves and there are no other options absent instilling some sort of corporate conscience into the upper echelons of management. (Good luck on that one.) Which means a degree of political activism is required from each demonstrator and anyone sympathetic to their plight.

I’ve recently suggested not voting for any incumbent nor donating any money to any campaign in an attempt to weed out career politicos and the influence that big donations ensure. Another option is not voting for any candidate running for a particular office should you find none acceptable. This is kind of the “none of the above” approach, but would speak volumes if, say only a third of the voters cast a vote for a particular position. Don’t confuse this with not going to the polls in the first place. By doing that, you’ve simply identified yourself as a non-participant and that’s the last thing you should want.

Another option is to step outside the traditional political parties and their trappings and log on to AmericansElect.org. This movement is perhaps the best chance we’ve seen in  a long time to alter the way we choose a president. If you are the least bit put off by “politics as usual”, you owe it to yourself to at least drop by the website for a look-see. What’ve you got to lose?

Should the occupiers grow tired of assembling and simply go home and sit back down in front of their nearest electronic display, then their heartfelt demonstrations will have been for naught. Like it or not, the only solution to the banking fiasco is through our political system and the only way to change that is from the ground up. Grass roots efforts will always change systems far faster than relying on any group of folks enjoying the fruits of the status quo.

So let’s all hope that something special is germinating and let’s all take pride in assisting  its growth and maturation by getting reacquainted with asking questions and doing our best to change the way Washington does business. Occupying Wall Street and other venues is a good start, but to be successful we must also occupy the voting booth.