Today is #OccupyAustin and as I talk to local politicos about the burgeoning new “occupy[insertyourtown]” movement we speculate on how long it will be before some highly funded, issue specific group comes in and marginalizes it like the TEA Party. Within the Occupy Austin movement there is a clear structure being created with a General Assembly that meets daily and specific committees who democratically discuss issues and make plans. They have a website and are highly motivated and engaged. Their facebook page already has over 7,000 fans and today’s event has over 4,000 RSVPs. It will be interesting to see who is behind such a speedy effort to first occupy the URL OccuppyAustin.org then to create such a content heavy web presence.
The in-cohesive nature and lack of pure ideology are part of what gives these movements credibility. You can not cut the head from a headless snake, but groups like Move On are trying to shape themselves into just that. As we have seen so far celebrities and unions have “joined the fight” though no specific agenda has been outlined. Isn’t the point here though, that people are just tired of failed leadership at the hands of greed? Do they really need an agenda or specific reforms to push? Like a friend said, “What matters is these people are getting off their asses.” At the end of the day public policy is no overnight read and is generally left for politicians, activists (which anyone with spare time can be) and business ‘leaders’ to work out. Average working class people, if they in fact have work, do not have time to become political scientists.
After a historic election of “hope and change” how did we get to a point where we have two separate organic movements against our nations establishment? Ladies and gentlemen this is nothing new. It happened at the end of the Roman Empire as well. The young educated class who could not find work lost respect for “Roman virtue” when they saw it was really just a farce to keep the common order of things as they were. There was no real meritocracy. All any of these people want is a job where they do not feel like they are getting the screws. I see pundits refer to them as communist, socialists and anti-capitalist as if they just hate rich people. Sure those types are drawn to large gathers and protests in general. However, I suspect that these folks wouldn’t mind bonuses for bank executives if they weren’t just laid off by a bank, or if wasn’t funded by taxpayer bailout money. This is what people are tired of. Watching people who made bad decisions redistribute the nations wealth amongst themselves.
Simple question: Would our economy be in this shape if these financial executives were doing a “good job” or at least one worth 10 million a year?
Bush said it:
Some workers are being left behind in the booming economy and the disparity between the rich and the poor is growing…The fact is that income inequality is real. It has been rising for more than 25 years…The earnings gap is now twice as wide as it was in 1980. Bush said, adding that more education and training can lift peoples’ salaries.
Reagan said it:
Now try it yourself…