So the idea is take more money away from the .01% or .001% who have money/wealth/power in the way you have described, and give it to who? The Government? I'm sorry but after working in Government contracting for two years you'd be shocked at just how slow, bureaucratic, and corrupt the Government is. I'd much rather the power be in the hands of the private sector with Government oversight, than the power be in the Government with no oversight.
You're right, I think most people who are comfortable are... comfortable? Content? Cool with the status quo? All the same ways of saying people with jobs can't go take weeks of time off from work to go sit somewhere and protest even if they agree with the idea, and certainly aren't going to spend their night burning buildings down if they have to wake up at 7 the next.
The United States, as you point out, was built on the principles of freedom and upward mobility. We certainly still have our freedoms, are you suggesting we don't have upward mobility because the game is fixed by the Walmarts of the world and implicit oligarchy of capitalism? I can agree with some of that. But as South Park elegantly pointed out last night, just because the protesters have a point that the system is flawed doesn't mean they're affecting change or presenting a cohesive solution for people to get behind.
From my OP onward I have said that OWS needs to come up with a discrete set of goals if they want it to gain traction or make any progress. Think of the civil rights movement as a model of how to protest an injustice. They pinpointed exactly what was unjust and rallied against it until they got the change.
Lax, I like you, buddy. And I respect your opinions. We just really philosophically disagree on this point. Accordingly, I disagree with just about everything you wrote.
One thing we do agree on: our government is infuriatingly corrupt and inefficient. I think a big part of that is the influence of money on the governing process. It is undeniable that big money influences policy and sets the agenda, and that creates a tension between doing what you're paid to do and doing what you were elected to do. I'm not sure exactly how you fix that. I know that any solution would likely be radical. But you're kind of missing the point on demanding answers to that at this stage. The first step is getting people to understand there is a problem that needs to be addressed, and then you can get everyone moving in one direction and an acceptable, sensible solution becomes more likely.
The point about being comfortable - I acknowledge that your attitude about it is the most common one. "I'm good, why would I want to upset the status quo?" Which is why I described us as pacified and compared it to the attitude of british loyalists (I could come up with more apt, but more potentially offensive metaphors). I think it is a selfish way of looking at things.
You're right about another thing - I can't go down to Wall Street and protest. First of all, I can't afford to take the time to do it. Second, I'm an attorney. I can't risk getting arrested. It could ruin my life. So maybe that makes me a pussy, but that is my reality. I still intellectually support them.
If OWS were to say "tax the .01% and reinvest the money into infrastructure improvements!" then a lot of people might say "yeah, that's a good idea! My roads are falling apart and the ultra-wealthy are simply sitting on their capital and not creating jobs like they should!" But instead it comes off as disorganized, subjective whining. As South Park so elegantly pointed out again through satire, the 1% line is just non-nonsensical and subjective. You could make it the top 2%... top .5%... top .1%... and so when working people see the cutoff for the 1% at a doctor's salary they immediately identify more with a hardworking doctor than the guy in a tent not even trying to look for a job.
I wanted to do this paragraph separately, because it is really interesting. Probably your best stuff in this thread, IMO.
I totally get the argument that what they are doing would come across as much more reasonable to the average person in Topeka, KS if they had a succinct super-coherent message. And I think the hypothetical message you made here could be a good starting point, actually. Infrastructure and jobs and taxes for the rich are all topical in contemporary politics. But what the protest is about is not necessarily the micro in terms of today's issues, but the macro. It is a big picture thing. It is about power structure, and not just here, but globally. So developing a coherent, succinct message about that stuff may take a little time. Any solution is complicated and multifaceted. And people hate complicated policy arguments. They want a soundbite, or if necessary a two sentence summation of your entire platform.
And that ties into your second point about the "99% vs. 1%". That is their attempt at marketing their movement. It is meant, I think, to be catchy and symbolic and illustrative of dynamics at play, rather than a literal description of their issue.
