#ows

I support strongly the Occupy Wall Street movement, a fact that will not come as a surprise to regular TFB readers. I realize that you may not, and that's fine - I'm not going to try to convince you that it's worthy of your support.

I do, however, wish that people would make a greater effort to at least understand it, a task that is not made particularly easy by the manner in which the media and many public figures have chosen to represent the OWS movement. If you haven't yet, I think it's in your interest as an informed citizen to read The Declaration of the Occupation of the Wall Street of New York City. It's not so long that you'll be tempted to give it a tl;dr, and it will help frame the rest of this article.

All done? Great! Again, I personally find the stated goals of the group - to publicize those facts they list and encourage public assembly and debate - very worthwhile. You still may not, but at least now you know what they are. This is more than many people, including many of the people who speak most vociferously against the movement, have done. If you were/are opposed to OWS but took the time to read and understand their charter, I give you a lot of credit. And now that everyone at least understands the purpose of the movement, I'd like to make some comments about how it's been misunderstood and misrepresented. And if you skipped it, here's another hyperlink that will give you a chance to read it before we discuss further.

It's not violent
You wouldn't know it at times by the way police in riot gear have frequently and regrettably dealt with the protestors, but they're not an actual problem worthy of police in riot gear. They really aren't. It's a nice coincidence that police across the nation solved all of their actual crime in their cities just before Occupy started, so they could concentrate their resources on harassing a bunch of protestors, and that John Pike was able to conserve enough pepper spray (a food product, as Fox's Megyn Kelly reminds us) for those kids sitting on a sidewalk at UC Davis. You've seen the videos, you've seen the photos - it's completely unnecessary and saddening.

Someone made the interesting point that the very fact that we've enabled these police forces, provided them with all this riot gear and weaponry, leads inexorably to the sort of violence and clashes we've seen, and there's probably something to that view. But I've seen Occupy Cleveland, and those protestors don't pose a threat to anything. To the credit of Cleveland's Finest, there hasn't been any excessive force and the police have apparently been fair and civil. But the point is, they've managed here to allow peaceable demonstration with a minimum of interference. Ironically, if it weren't for the police, these incidents (violent and otherwise) at the Occupy demonstrations across the nation would be virtually negligible.


It's not a left-wing thing
It kinda seems that way though, doesn't it? It's certainly portrayed as being so, and there can be little doubt that the vast majority of the 1% against which the 99% has aligned themselves are conservative Republicans. On the other hand, if all of the 99% are Democrats, then the group of individuals vying for the GOP nomination for President are seriously wasting their time.

I suppose this is a convenient, if lazy, narrative to buy into, and admittedly I initially thought of it that way. It took none other than Michele Bachmann to spark additional thinking on the topic. You see, Bachmann is wrong about every single thing she says, so when she characterized OWS as "the Obama re-election team," I knew there must be more to it than I had recognized at first.

Forget for a minute that her statement is immediately ridiculous because of how cautiously Obama has distanced himself from OWS, and consider again a few of the corporate behaviors that the Occupy people are opposing:

- They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.

- They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.

- They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.

These aren't inherently left-wing or right-wing topics. These are protests against the way the relationship between Corporate America and Political America benefits a very small slice of society at the expense of everybody else. Thee sorts of things - the cozy dealings between politicians and their huge Wall Street donors, giant taxpayer-funded bailouts - should be the scourge of Tea Party members every bit as they should be for Progressive liberals. If you profess a belief in "limited government" - and for all my disagreements with the approach and policies of the Tea Party, I think they are sincere in their desire for less government intrusion, at least in certain realms - you should oppose strongly the things Government and Business are doing together. Most of you are in the 99% as well.

The extent to which Occupy continues to be viewed as a liberal, left-wing phenomenon is, I think, an extension of the success the Republican Party has had in convincing people to vote against their own economic self-interest while continuing to enrich the wealthiest Americans. It's remarkable, from a political perspective, the extent to which Republicans have controlled the message on this topic despite all evidence to their contrary. How else to explain a hilarious text message I heard on a radio show I heard the other day, suggesting that Obama's reelection slogan should be, "Twice the Taxes, Half the Jobs." Misinformation like this, easily refuted by some eye-opening graphs constructed by Paul Krugman and the mathematical fact that taxes have decreased during the Obama presidency, keeps a healthy portion of the 99% from supporting a movement that is in fact very much in line with their beliefs and objectives.


It's not about "envy"
This is the way that those who are under fire prefer to view OWS - the protestors are simply envious of our wealth and power and are lashing out. Wrong. For me, at least, this doesn't enter into the equation - being ultra-wealthy and having this outsize influence on politics has no personal appeal to me. It doesn't make the world any better, that's for certain. I saw an episode of "Million Dollar Rooms" on HGTV the other day and all I could think was, "why would anyone ever want a room worth over $1 million?"

Wanting a fair system is not the same as being jealous of those who exploit it.


It's not a bunch of hippies looking for a handout
Nevertheless, that's the prevailing narrative, because it's way, way easier to parrot than doing what all of you TFB readers were patient and intelligent to do - actually read and understand the principles of Occupy Wall Street. As Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi demonstrates with a collection of priceless quotes, that's the way the 0.1% themselves prefer to view things. And who could forget Newt Gingrich's thoughtless, mean-spirited suggestion that the protestors "take a bath." Zing!

As an interlude, I've praised Taibbi's work before, but it's worth another mention because no one's documenting our modern era of finance and corruption better than he is, particularly in his brilliant, passionate Griftopia.

Here's the thing - it's far, far easier to character assassinate those against whom you disagree than to argue the merits of their ideas. Why bother reading the Declaration they prepared when you can launch ad hominem attacks? Much less taxing (ha!), though I think it betrays a lack of thought on those who would oppose OWS. I'm not talking about you TFB stalwarts, of course - you definitely took the time to read the link I provided to the document and met it intellectually. Maybe you didn't agree with it and can provide solid reasons why, and I respect that, but you didn't use generalizations and stereotypes in place of well-reasoned arguments. Right?

By far the worst offender on this front was comedian Adam Carolla. Now look, I like Carolla - I think he's a funny guy with interesting ideas, and enjoyed a recent performance I saw of his at a comedy club downtown and his first book, In Fifty Years, We'll All Be Chicks. But his take on OWS was appallingly stupid, a brutally ignorant tirade that never once even attempts to give any thought or consideration to the goals or ideas of the movement. Why bother with that heavy lifting, when there's the younger generation to harangue instead?

Go ahead, read a transcript of Carolla's rant. I'm going to go ahead and say that referring to an entire generation of people as "ass douches" isn't a strong indicator that you've given particularly deep thought to the political issues at stake here, and indeed Carolla has not. He sees people who he doesn't like, stereotypes them, generalizes them, and dismisses them.

Whatever. It's not like Carolla is the first older guy to criticize the younger generation. You know what generation has viewed younger people as less disciplined, less ambitious, less...good than themselves? All of them. That's what older people do. They bitch about younger people, rambling about "these kids today" and all that. They will always do this, because adults are bizarrely incapable of remembering that they were once kids and young adults who had older adults viewing them disdainfully. I'll be careful not to do this too much when I'm older, but I'm sure it will creep into my discourse a little bit.

The thing is, Carolla isn't necessarily wrong in his view of many members of the Millennial generation. They may indeed have an overdeveloped sense of entitlement and difficulty in dealing with the real world, though I would argue that doesn't qualify lumping an entire generation in as "ass douches."


Even if they were, that doesn't matter
But guess what? THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OCCUPY WALL STREET. Even if Millennials are a bunch of spoiled brats and all the things he alleges about Occupiers are 100% true, he's made no point whatsoever about the goals of OWS, which of course you all read some time ago at the start of this piece. It's not some reductio ad hippium, where an idea can't be valid if the people actively promoting it don't strike one's fancy. He's made a bunch of crusty old man generalizations in place of analysis - guess what, pal, I'm not a Millennial, I don't fit any of your crude stereotypes, and I very much support OWS, so what now? Exactly.

All I'm asking is that, when you form an opinion on the Occupy movement, that you base that opinion on their actual goals and ideas - the items they set out in their Declaration, the injustices they've protested passionately. Don't base it on stereotypes of who's hanging out in Zucotti Park, or where you think your party affiliation should place your opinions. Base it on the facts, and agree or disagree, you'll be a better citizen for having done so.