Tags
American Wall Street Protests, Clueless Wall Street Protesters, How regulations hurt Americans, Tea Party verses Occupy Wall Street, Why Wall Street Protesters are wrong
(A follow up to this article has been written under the moniker Wall Street Protesters go to War)
The Wall Street protesters are still blocking streets, soiling public right of ways, and carrying nonsensical signs like eat the rich. They have been touted as the anti-Tea Party and given their propensity to trash public areas, get arrested and even damage private property that is a moniker Tea Party folks should see as a compliment. These people are not the Midwestern mom and pops that populated the Tea Party rallies rather an odd assortment of societal malcontents. About the only thing the the occupy Wall Street folks have in common with the Tea Party is they both started spontaneously. The Occupy Wall Street protest seems to have started when a bunch of students and left wing activist started twittering among themselves about corporate greed. It has since quickly grown from a simple anti-greed rally to an outlet for every type of left wing lunacy. The growth has been helped along with support from unions, left wing activist, socialist organizations as well as many Democratic politicians. Now if you really want to know who these rowdy unkempt (and often un-showered) folks are you may have to do some digging beyond the media hype. The vast majority seem to be clueless people with a lot of gripes but are unable to articulate what exactly the problems are or how to fix them. Most believe that somehow others wealth has come at their expense. Unlike the Tea Party they also see a LACK of government intervention and control being part of the problem. They are fed up with a system they do not understand but are certain is at the center of all that is wrong with the world. One thing they are not is a representation of America. Democratic strategist Douglas Schoen’s group recently polled the Wall Street protesters and found some surprising statistics. Despite many beliefs to the contrary these people are not disgruntled because of they are unemployed, 85% have a job. What nearly all of them (98%) have in common is a belief that civil disobedience is a legitimate tool for change (which explains the number of arrests). What is even more disturbing is nearly 1 in 3 support violence to advance their agenda. They are further bound by their aversion to capitalism and fanatical embrace of wealth distribution. Despite President Obama’s claim to the contrary these people are not reflective of mainstream America. One supporter of the Occupy Wall Street crowd commented on how many felt that the present system is corrupting Democracy. He saw corporate lobbyist with their money manipulating the system and that ordinary citizens were getting shoved aside. To him democracy itself was under attack. The answer in his mind was to increase regulations on corporations and to strengthen the role of government in society. Of course there is a disconnect between his complaints and his solutions. First of all government regulations are one of the main causes of the problems he and many of he occupy Wall Street crowd seem so concerned about. For Instance:
- The number of lobbyist an industry employes is directly connected to the how much Washington is trying to regulate it. The more regulated the business the more it feels it necessary to gain influence in congress. This not only goes for businesses but for anyone who’s activities are threatened by congressional do gooders. The NRA and the Audubon society are opposing groups created for similar purposes, to protect the interest of their members. It seems like common sense that if excessive regulation breeds lobbying and corruption then even more regulation would only make the matter worse.
- New regulations are most burdensome to small and start-up businesses. As a result the greater the amount of regulations the more concentrated business becomes. One thing you often hear business moguls often say is they would of never of made it if they had to deal with today’s regulatory environment. If you want a more diverse marketplace you also need to have a less regulated one.
Government involvement in society as a way to protect democracy is equally nonsensical.
- As our lives come under the increasing control of unelected bureaucrats we loose more and more influence over government and control of our own lives.
- Also when government starts choosing winners and losers the people lose control of their futures. No longer is it a matter of what you do but who you know. (this is the reason that communist government is always a corrupt government)
In a ironic twist it is precisely the strategy supported by the Tea Party that is most likely to succeed in advancing the desires of the Occupy Wall Street. Less regulation and less government will result in a less corrupt and more democratic society. Despite this fact do not look forward to anyone from the Occupy Wall Street crowd demonstrating for less government anytime soon.
The Conservative Mind
“if this article makes you think pass it on”
The Conservative Mind 
Not only are your factual sources woefully inadequate, but your characterizations of the protesters are obviously rooted in equally inadequate media representations. Given your conservative philosophy, I would assume your opinions are formed via broadcasts put forth by Fox News and other conservative-leaning news outlets. A look at independent broadcasts from non-affiliated news stations (as well as a plethora of videos and interviews found via Youtube and other on-the-ground sites) would reveal your characterizations of “societal malcontents” to be grossly inaccurate.
To counter claims of accuracy in categorizing the protesters, I point to Douglas Schoen’s polling techniques. Not only is he sampling a ridiculously small cross-section (200 protestors?) with unknown bias (it’s easy to single out the most radical-looking members of any movement and use them to characterize the whole movement), but Schoen goes on to list an equally factually inaccurate (and unbacked) claim that only 21% of the country is liberal (as opposed to 41% conservative, a completely illogical argument with no data).
Given the protesters’ goals are against free-market greed, corporate lobbying, corporatization of government, and decrease of market regulation, I would expect a conservative such as yourself to counter these arguments. Next time, however, use established facts and policy arguments instead of baseless character assassinations to further your claims, for it discredits your viewpoint.
I would of hoped for a more precise critique, this after all is one of my least referenced articles. To describe those protesting all they believe wrong in our society as societal malcontents is merely repeating the obvious. One could claim the New York protesters cannot be held to be totally representative of the protesters around the country but a sampling of 200 out of a few thousand is actually a large sampling as far as polls go. Most polls rely on random samples of a few hundred per million. As far as the 41% of the country being self described conservatives you need only to check out polls from every major polling organization to find out they all come up with similar numbers. Of course pollsters are looking at the country as a whole, if you are looking at 18-25 year olds or college liberal arts professors I am sure the stats would be totally different.
As far as your last comments I will only point out the obvious. 1. Free Markets are nothing more then individuals satisfying the needs and desires of each other in the form of mutually satisfying transactions. If that is your definition of greed so be it but it is not mine. 2. The problem is not the protesters are against corporate lobbying but that they do not realize what is the root cause of it.. If you realize government trying to influence and direct businesses through regulation results in business doing the same to government you do not ask for more regulations. 3. I am not sure what “corporatization of government” is suppose to mean but if you are saying government and business getting in bed together is a bad thing I think we can agree on that. If on the other hand you believe government should direct business as it sees fit (which is the cornerstone of fascism) we are on different planets. Government in a free society should act as impartial referee, not player, coach and referee. 4. As far as decreased market regulation, I will excuse the ignorance. The markets, especially the financial markets, are more regulated today then they have ever been. With acts like Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes Oxley the situation is getting even more odious. This part of what is locking up capital and suppressing economic activity. Again if you wish to fix a situation you must first understand it.