There are those criticisms that claim not to understand the occupy protests, and they come in several forms. Some point out that the protests have no specific goal, that the protesters are criticizing the wrong groups, that instead of protesting they should take responsibility for their own actions. Some go so far as to say that if they truly represent the 99%, then why haven’t they thrown their electoral weight around that, while seeming fair at face value, actually gets to the heart of what I see is the foundation of not only the Occupy protests, but many of the protest today, including the Tea Party.
One theme that seems to unite all the major protests over the last few years is a general sense of anger and frustration. People feel that they have been left behind or been treated unfairly in the current socio-economic society. Be it anger at the government or anger at Wall Street and large corporations, what we are looking at is a foundational collapse of trust in our societal institutions. One way or another, people feel like they have been cheated and have reached their breaking point, resulting in protests aimed at whatever institutions is deemed most to blame.
For my part, though I have been spending much of my time on this blog critical of the Tea Party and supportive of the Occupy protests, I wish to make it clear that I do not see Government as free from guilt, particularly in helping to bring about the mortgage crisis. My desire to drive a firmer wedge between moneyed lobbying groups and the machinations of government is something I think both libertarians/conservatives and liberals can readily agree. However, when I look at which institutions would be most able to potentially serve the interests of the majority of people, it always turns out to be the government. Government, so far, is the only societal institution with the potential power to defend the general public from vested interests. Government-business collusion can obviously get in the way of this mission.
I also do not withhold criticism from individuals themselves. To the question of whether or not individuals should take responsibility for our role in the financial collapse, all I can answer is ‘perhaps.’ But while the financial crisis is an abject lesson of individual responsibility, it is the lack of criticism aimed at the “experts” in the upper echelons of the banking industry and the like-minded politicians in government. Now, I have no issue with experts who can back up their status as experts, but if we have learned anything from the economic recession it is that the self-proclaimed experts were anything but. The failure of the banking institutions and the government bureaucracy to see the crisis coming, or fail to at least try and prevent it, belies what we had been told for the past few decades. Prior to 2008, one didn’t hear the common individual claiming any expert knowledge about finances, but you did hear that from the “elite” of the financial world. This juxtaposition of is one of the major sources of anger.
But there is another source of frustration that is just as if not more important than what has been discussed: a sense of inequality, or as I like to put it, a sense of unfairness. Many have heard about the “99%” and for the most part it refers to the income gap that has arisen over the past 30 years (as demonstrated by these two charts). Over the past 30 years we had been told that eventually the prosperity of the top would spark prosperity to everyone else. It seems now that the people have gotten tired of waiting. But while some are yelling about class warfare, and about stealing from the rich (often given the misnomer of “redistribution of wealth”), I don’t think much of America is so mean-spirited. While there are certainly those taking part in the Occupy protests who are proponents of the aforementioned ideas, the frustration that the Occupy protests seem to represent stem from a sense of unfairness. In the end, I don’t think most Americans truly despise or hate others because of their success or wealth. At base, I don’t think they want to take from anyone. I’m sure many would prefer to have the opportunity to work toward a higher income rather than tax the rich more. But Americans do have a tremendous sense of fairness, and any anger, frustration, or proposal should be seen in this context. If the disparity was not so high (in the sense of current income and comparative growth in income), if there was a sense that everyone was doing well, not just a selected elite, I’m sure people not mind if, say, the top earners paid less taxes. And while it is true that income has increased for nearly everyone, it is the explosion of wealth at the very top that touches on the people’s sense of unfairness. It appears that the only ones to see significant benefits with current economic system are those at the top, and that is why there are protesters in the streets.
It is the combination of the perception of unfairness and the collapse of trust in our socio-economic institutions that makes me defend the contemporary protests from those that are so quick to be dismissive. If there was trust in the institutions, if they seemed to be working properly, then we could address the unfairness and inequality maturely and confidently. However, without trust, these intuitions cannot work, and therefore we cannot address the problems that face society. The Occupy protests may be ragtag, they may be a bit radical, and they may be amorphous, but the protests, and the frustration and anger which they represent, is very real. If we are dismissive, we do so at our own peril.
