1. You can't demand change from the government if all the protestors are asking for different things.
* Even though most of the protestors lean left, they don't support a common solution. You have people who want to end the Fed, keep the Fed, resort to socialism, fight socialism, bail out students, stop all bail outs, and so on.
I partially agree. However, 'most of the protestors' makes it seem as if a large portion are right-wingers. 'Almost all' would be more appropriate.
There are two things that almost all of the protestors agree upon:
1) Corporations manipulate people and make little contribution to society
2) America has virtually no left-wing representation in the government, despite the fact that a poll in 2008 said 33% of American citizens prefer Socialism over Capitalism
A corollary to proposition 1) is that the gap between the rich and the poor is growing larger and larger. The slogan 'We are the 99%', despite being a hyperbole and a method of propaganda, does have some meaning. It means that the 1% are living a rich and leisurely life, while there are many people out there struggling to find a supportive job.
A right-wing response to this might be "then why don't they get of their butts and find a job?". This is impossible for some people, for a variety of reasons. One, there are more people in the U.S. than there are jobs. Two, there are many people at a financial disadvantage who cannot afford to get into college, therefore not being able to find a well-paying job. Growing up in a financially disadvantaged family, I am soon to be one of those people despite my profound abilities in Mathematics.
Also, I would like to point out that many homeless people are not homeless because they are lazy. This is an ignorant generalization. Sure, there exist many homeless people who are homeless due to drug use. But many have mental illness and no family to take care of them. Many couldn't find a job. As many as 1/3 of homeless citizens are war veterans who had no financial standing after they returned to America.
Almost constantly, right-wing politicians have been trying to block financial aid laws that are designed to reduce the size of this giant chasm between the rich and the poor. Their main justification for this is because 'it is wrong to choose winners and losers.' I am diametrically opposed to this philosophy when it comes to the 'winners' being people who can afford the basic necessities of life and the 'losers' being people who can't.
Many people may find that proposition 2) very surprising, because the first thing that runs through their mind is
aren't the Democrats left-wingers?. The truth is, no. This is mainly because of two things:
- Political parties tend to drift over time due two popular social and economic trends
- Every time such a drift occurs, Americans feel the need to adjust the Democratic party and Republican party towards the center-left and center-right economic positions respectively
This drift-and-readjustment process that occurs in the American two-party system has caused our political spectrum to be extremely narrow. Therefore, taking a moderate stance in the American sense (i.e. a political stance between the Democrats and Republicans) will be taking a very conservative stance in the European sense. Those viewed as left-wing extremists in America will simply be viewed as social democrats in Europe.
From the preceding paragraph, we find that the Democrats, who are viewed as center-left in America, are viewed as mainstream conservatives in Europe. But if 33% of American citizens prefer Socialism, which is much farther left than the Democratic Party, then where is Americaâs socialist representation in Congress? The answer to that is, we have only one socialist in Congress, Bernie Sanders.
Many left-wing protestors feel that their representation in Congress is not expressed. Where is the democracy here? If our government, along with other governments, want to follow the growing popularity of neoliberalism, flaws in the system of Representative Government leave the left-wingers with little to no representation. This is happening more rapidly in America than in Europe, because most European countries conform to a multi-party system.
* Many of the protestors are against big wall street bail outs, however, they want the government to bail out students. I believe ALL bailouts are wrong.
I do not understand why you believe this. Many students can hardly get by, individual bailout is sure to give financial aid. The main problem with corporate bailout is that the government treats these big corporations like people, and many Republican senators are bribed to give such bailout.
Before we think of raising taxes, the government needs to stop spending so much money. Many or the protestors want the government to spend EVEN MORE than what they already are.
I agree with this. If you are a conservative, you will probably disagree on me saying that we should cut military spending before we cut financial aid programs. This is my opinion because I am moderately non-interventionist, and I think that war should be avoided whenever it is possible. Also, one of the big purposes of taxation is to provide for financial aid programs, so cutting financial aid programs in order to raise taxes for financial aid programs is circular.
Many protestors look at the corporations who bribe our politicians and they say "we need to decrease corporate power by increasing government power." The problem is that corporate power increases alongside political power. The more powerful the government becomes, the more susceptible to bribes they become.
I do not think that protestors usually say this. They are mainly vouching that individual bailout will decrease the gap between the 99% and the 1%. Most of them want to decrease the power of corporations, but usually just by making the government punish the corporations for misleading the general public. I am not really sure what you mean by âgovernment powerâ; government power over what? Could you please explain further?
Also, Democrats are much less susceptible to corporate bribery than Republicans. By increasing the left-wing representation in Congress, even fewer politicians will be susceptible to corporate bribery. This is because most left-wingers dislike corporate power in general.
I'm aware that you can't judge a whole group of people on the few rotten eggs, but the number of crimes are just ridiculous. There have been deaths, rapes, drug over doses, and even public defecation.
Keep in mind that this happens to every protests. In fact, the protests are relatively peaceful compared to the Civil Rights Protests in the 60âs, led by Martin Luther King Jr. The reason that this fact is surprising is that the King protests were glorified (rightfully); there is virtually no reactionary section opposed to those protests today.
With OWS, there are very many reactionaries since the movement is currently in progress. The OWS reactionaries have virtually the same criticisms that the King protest reactionaries had in the 60âs (violent, crazy, etc.). However, the King protests were much, much worse along the parameters that you are using to criticize OWS. In fact, there were many riots during the summers of the 60âs as a result of these protests.
