OCCUPY WALL STREET: Separating Fact from Media
Oct 14th, 2011 | 16 responses
Newspaper columnist Ann Coulter, spreading the lies of the extreme right wing, called the Occupy Wall Street protestors, “tattooed, body-pierced, sunken-chested 19-year-olds getting in fights with the police for fun.” She claimed the protestors, now in the thousands in New York, are “directionless losers [who] pose for cameras while uttering random liberal clichés lacking any reason or coherence.” (Several hundred thousand of these “directionless losers” are expected to attend rallies in more than 650 cities, Oct. 15.)
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), House majority leader, called the protest nothing more than “growing mobs,” completely oblivious to his myriad statements that he supports “mobs” when they are from the Tea Party. Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, tacking as far right as possible to avoid anyone thinking he was once a moderate, called the protest “dangerous.”
Republican presidential contender Herman Cain, in a moment that demonstrated how out of touch he is with the economic reality of the five-year recession, argued, “Don’t blame Wall Street, don’t blame the big banks; if you don’t have a job and you’re not rich, blame yourself!”
Glenn Beck, too irrational even for Fox News, which terminated him less than two years after it tried to make him a TV superstar, told his radio audience, the protestors “will come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you.”
Lauren Ellis of Mother Jones, at one time a cutting edge magazine for social justice, believed that the protestors have a “lack of focus.” Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, wrote, “A protest without an objective is like a party or a picnic of the unemployed and the indolent. Unless you have an objective, what are you doing out there?”
First, let’s see just who these protestors really are. And then, let’s see what they stand for, since the mainstream media, of which Fox News is an entrenched part, don’t seem to be getting the message from the people.
The protestors rightly say they are part of the 99 percent; the other one percent have 42 percent of the nation’s wealth, the top 20 percent have more than 85 percent of the nation’s wealth, the highest accumulation since 1928, the year before the Great Depression. Even the most oblivious recognize the protestors as a large cross-section of America. They are students and teachers; housewives, plumbers, and physicians; combat veterans from every war from World War II to the present. They are young, middle-aged, and elderly. They are high school dropouts and Ph.D.s. They are from all religions and no religion, and a broad spectrum of political views.
Support has come from senior politicians with very different philosophies. Vice President Joe Biden believes the protests are because “In the minds of the vast majority of the American–the middle class is being screwed.” Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), unlike a vast majority of Republican politicians, stated, “If they were demonstrating peacefully, and making a point, and arguing our case, and drawing attention to the Fed—I would say, ‘good!’”
Second, like all protests, there are different opinions within the ranks. But, there is a core of beliefs. The protestors are fed up with corporate greed that has a base of corporate welfare and special tax benefits for the rich. They support the trade union movement, Medicare and Social Security, affordable health care for all citizens, and programs to assist the unemployed, disenfranchised, and underclass. A nation that cannot take care of the least among us doesn’t deserve to be called the best of us.
They’re mad that the home mortgage crisis, begun when greed overcame ethics and was then magnified by the failure of regulatory agencies and the Congress to provide adequate oversight, robbed all of America of its financial security. During the first half of this year alone, banks and lending agencies have sent notices to more than 1.2 million homeowners whose loans and mortgages are in default status, according to RealtyTrak. Of course, less regulation is just what conservatives want—after all, their mantra has become, “no government in our lives.”
The protestors are mad that the wealthiest corporations pay little or no taxes. They point to the Bank of America, part of the mortgage crisis problem, which earned a $4.4 billion profit last year, but received a $1.9 billion tax refund on top of a bailout of about $1 trillion. They look at ExxonMobil, which earned more than $19 billion profit in 2009, paid no taxes and received a $156 million federal rebate. Its profit for the first half of 2011 is about $ 21.3 billion.
They rightfully note that it is slimy when General Electric, whose CEO is a close Obama advisor, earned a $26 billion profit during the past five years, but still received a $4.1 billion refund.
They’re mad that the federal government has given the oil industry more than $4 billion in subsidy, although the industry earned more than $1 trillion in profits the past decade.
They’re mad that Goldman Sachs, after receiving a $10 billion government bailout, and a $2.7 billion profit in the first quarter of 2011, shipped about 1,000 jobs overseas. During the past decade, corporations, which have paid little or no federal taxes, have outsourced at least 2.4 million jobs and are hoarding trillions which could be used to spur job growth and the economy.
They’re mad that corporations that took federal bailout money gave seven-figure bonuses to their executives.
They’re mad that the U.S., of all industrialized countries, has the highest ratio of executive pay to that of the average worker. The U.S. average is about 300 to 475 times that of the average worker. In Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Canada, and England, the average CEO earns between 10 and 20 times what the average worker earns, and no one in those countries believes the CEOs are underpaid.
They’re mad that 47 percent of all persons who earned at least $250,000 last year, including about 1,500 millionaires, paid no taxes, according to Newsmax. If you’re a Republican member of Congress, that’s perfectly acceptable. They’re the ones who thought President Obama was launching class warfare against the rich by trying to restore the tax rate for the wealthiest Americans. They succeeded in blocking tax reform and a jobs bill, but failed to understand the simple reality—if there is class warfare, it is being waged by the elite greedy and their Congressional lackeys.
Herman Cain, Fox TV pundit Sean Hannity, and others from the extreme right wing said the protestors are un-American, apparently for protesting corporate greed. The Occupy Wall Street protestors aren’t un-American; those who defend the destruction of the middle class by defending greed, and unethical and illegal behavior, are.
[Walter Brasch is an award-winning syndicated columnist, and the author of 17 books. His latest book is Before the First Snow, a social issues mystery set in rural Pennsylvania.]
16 Responses to “OCCUPY WALL STREET: Separating Fact from Media”
This reads more like a list of things Dr. Braasch is mad about, not necessarily OWS. Despite the efforts of pundits trying to do it for them, one of the the weaknesses of OWS has been difficulty expressing their message coherently.
Thanks for the fine post Walter. Needless to say, there are a lot of people who have an interest in portraying the OWS people in the least desirable. The list you mention is a compilation of some people with incredibly low (and mostly well documented) character. Their purpose here is clear and it is one based on deceit and cynicism. To the OWS folks, I say, keep it up and GROW!
Media? What Media? By comparison to Cairo this year NOTHING!
We should build a Pyramid on Long Island and pour raw sewage in the Hudson…maybe THEN the media will come.
Allen, this is getting quite a bit of coverage in the internet media and that’s what I was referring to. The NYT had a pretty good editorial last weekend making some of the same points Dr. Brasch is making, so at least some of the mainstream media is paying attention.
The leaderless nature of the OWS is intentional but it does have it’s drawbacks, one of which is lack of a unified message. Since their message is fairly nebulous there’s a tendency for people to project onto the OWS their own opinions, which I think is reflected in this essay.
Indeed it does. He quotes many people on the right but no one from OWS.
I tend to agree with Mr. Krauthammer, the real measure of the movement is what specific changes it’s after. I mean, who doesn’t want affordable health care? The disputes start at the level of policy, when it’s revealed whose bills will go up in the name of “affordability”. And it’s easy to be against greed and the other deadly sins, but that’s simply not a meaningful position until you tie it to specific policy changes.
DaGoat & J-quack
“Intentional” means orchestrated and not grass roots.
These demonstrations are grass roots. Unlike the tea party political theater.
So “intentional” in not descriptive. Maybe you would like to choose another word.
The NYT is not mainstream. It’s a local newspaper. Quite irrelevant across the nation.
The message is clear. WALL STREET SUCKS. UNCONTROLLED CAPITALISM SUCKS. IF YOU ARE A POLITICIAN THAT SUPPORTS EITHER, YOU SUCK!
Yep, pretty clear to me and the rest of the country IMO.
Walter, good post. It accurately reflects the positions I heard expressed at the OWS rally I stumbled upon last weekend. There was an underlying emotion of anger, but most of the people I talked to were just tired of the naked greed of the rich and empowered, the “I got mine, screw you” attitude. I was surprised that they didn’t want the wealthy to go away, but they want the wealthy to acknowledge that they actually were part of society and didn’t achieve their success in a vacuum, that they have disproportionately benefited from past investments in education and infrastructure, and owe society for that benefit. The participants I spoke with acknowledged they don’t know how to do this, but they need to start somewhere, and they do need to start getting the message out in a manner that can be understood. As one individual said, the 1% doesn’t understand the 99%, but if the 99% start talking the same language as the 1% it will scare the hell out of them.
Me too. But most of the time when I encounter that attitude, it’s in writings from the left, caricaturing the right. I agree the attitude is a problem, but I don’t think it’s at the core of the political situation.
Really? I’ll refer you back to the EJ Dionne/George Will/Elizabeth Warren drama earlier this week. George Will not only admitted that, he said pretty much everyone admits it, and I’d tend to agree with him.
Did the left receive the message with a sigh of relief? Not on your ninny. Because they don’t want anything as fuzzy as acknowledgment at all. The request seems to be code for raising taxes on someone by enough to some set of social goals.
Once again, the rubber hits the road over the specifics. Who should pay more taxes? How much will that raise? What are the social goals to be achieved, and how much will they cost?
“Intentional” means orchestrated and not grass roots.
These demonstrations are grass roots. Unlike the tea party political theater.
So “intentional” in not descriptive. Maybe you would like to choose another word.
Judging by the reports and videos of meetings of OWS I have seen, I think intentional is the correct word. The OWS folks seem to take great pains not to designate leaders, but instead take a collective approach. This does have some advantages but a well-defined message is not one of them.
Recently I’ve come to look at protest movements like this as serving the purpose of drawing attention to important issues, but that’s where their value ends. Both the tea party and the Occupiers draw attention to important issues: The growth or government and debt on one end, and the growing inequality and the other. Both sides share some common issues, actually: bailouts and government accountability to the people, for example.
But, when it comes to how to solve these problems, I wouldn’t trust a tea partier or an occupier with that question. It seems any real proposals from them are either incoherent or unrealistic (politically and practically). But that is to be expected in any movement like this. That is not where their value is.
So, I welcome both the tea partiers and the occupiers to the political equation, although I would never join either of them (both because of the lack of real policy proposals and because of the fringe that they tend to attract that I wouldn’t want to be associated with on either side). If a group of passionate people want to talk about inequality of wealth, I respect that. Sure, let’s talk about it.
Dr. J, I can only report on what I saw and heard while at the OWS rally. Apparently last weekend’s OWS participants did not read the EJ Dionne/George Will/Elizabeth Warren drama from earlier this week.
And it was clear that they are taking pains to not designate leaders, the comment I heard is that they don’t want an individual suggesting or driving their solutions, but rather letting the best of the ideas work their way to forefront.
By the way, out of curiosity, how many have actually attended either a Tea Party or OWS gathering. I’ll admit I didn’t intend to go to the OWS gathering but saw a large crowd a couple of blocks off while on my bike ride and decide to see what was going on. It was rather interesting to see the crowd dynamics and inspiring to feel the energy a gathering like that can generate.
Directionless loser here:
employed team lead at harvard medical school, graduate degree, well informed, showered and shaven.
I marched on wall street today.
I was prepared for accepting arrest.
Never have I ever been so proud of America.
Huzzah Hyperflow, good on you!
DaGoat-
Well you will just have to watch their commercial spots on MSNBC. First one came out today.
Pretty clear, (but you really wish it wasn’t, and, you whish the Tea Baggers were something more than an adolescent costume party against the Obama).
This is a “we gotcha by da nutsack” political movement defacing and discrediting conservative American politics, (and your laughable T-per junior hi-jinks) ….in…a…nut…shell.
Get yer goons out’n kick some posterior please….please please please….
hyperflow-
I am going to recommend you for a decoration.
Thank you for your service to your country!
BTW….I have this little crick in my back….kinda snaps when I urinate…..do you do pro bono….?
The energy of any protest is inherently negative. To transition to positive requires a change in mindset, resources and tactics. MSNBC might well confine it’s published footage to finding some positive connotation, the rest will be drawn to the opposite….like the NY public employee union member proclaiming to the camera ” the Zionist Jews gotta leave the country”. Imagine the attraction of the crucial moderate independent voter to a movement with a continual dosage of absalon’s and allen’s relatives.
Even to the extent there are now non-anarchists in the ranks, they will not succeed in affecting transition, because if they were actually people of capability, they would not find themselves powerless to improve their lot in life.
Thirdly, if Obama and the Dems decide to tack hard left going into the 12 months preceding elections to cater to this segment, let’s go ahead and give that a whirl. The election might as well be a clear and distinct choice.