The following is not related to my work producing meetings and special events. It is however, my effort to describe some of the most important events of our young century. I hope that you find this article interesting.
Joel A. Feingold
1038 Beacon St., #203
Brookline, MA 02446
v: 617-277-1149, c: 508-308-5408, email: joelafeingold@me.com
Origins and Principles of the Occupy Movement
c. 2011 by Joel A Feingold
Reprinting permitted with full credit for authorship and notice to author.
Upon its inception, Occupy Wall Street swiftly spread to numerous other cities and became a broadly acknowledged social movement. Initially well received, its lack of a clear message, a sound bite, rallying points, and a public policy message, has created some frustration among a portion of its natural supporters. Occupations have caused municipalities to absorb increasingly large financial costs, a real concern to supporters and detractors alike. Thus, the lack of clearly articulated policy advocacy has caused many to question the Occupy Movement. But Occupy has created broad awareness of the widening income inequality in our society. That in and of itself is a giant step.
The motivations of Occupiers and their supporters emerge from the wide chasm between the governmental actions and services citizens expect and those actually delivered. Many people believe that our government has failed to balance its rules and regulations with individual freedoms and societal norms of fairness and equality. Naturally, when pressed too hard, people respond. With trust broken, opportunities reduced, ability to be heard limited, and favoritism observed, it’s no wonder that people look for a way to improve their situation.
Some may react by forming new political parties, others by demonstrations. Some groups may be led by a few forceful leaders. Alternatively, they may take the form of mass uprisings with a chaotic and amorphous organization, if any, and an inchoate message at best. Today’s major political movements fit these broad brushstroke descriptions, the Tea Party being more hierarchically organized and laser focused on the ballot box and Occupy diffuse, each camp self-governing through general assemblies. As different as they are, both are the natural result of the same problem, a ruling class disassociated from the general public.
The branding of the dissatisfaction from which Occupy has grown is well known. “99%” now represents income inequality and a demand for it to be redressed. The astounding increase in the income gap between rich and poor has driven Occupy participants to action. Occupy’s signature demonstration, the formation of communities functioning via general assemblies with no specific leadership, promoting their message through 24/7/365 occupations of public space, has captured the attention of millions who observe their daily demonstrations and read or hear about Occupy in social media and the press. But the understanding of how such income inequality arises and what might be necessary to correct it has not.
There are two entities that interweave to form the system about which the activists are centered. The first is our government and its rules and regulations. It is highly evolved from a government that provides merely national defense and domestic security via a military, domestic police and a court system. Our government also regulates financial and industrial business activity, resource exploitation and environmental pollution, insurance, transportation, labor rights and more. It also provides funding for housing and education, community development, health care services, and manages the largest entitlement programs, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
The second entity is our market economy. A market economy sets pricing for materials, goods and services. It allows banking to flourish thereby supporting a system that has good access to capital. And it fosters a culture of innovation, as people look for the next great economic opportunity. A market economy also sets the price for labor and defines which skills are valuable, or not.
The market economy is inextricably intertwined with our government. Without government to set limits on behavior and resolve disputes companies would be wary about doing business with each other as a system for recourse would not exist. Customers’ access to credit might be difficult, slowing or all but eliminating growth. Established businesses would be able to employ unethical tactics to destroy new competitors. Monopolies would be created stifling innovation. Excessive pricing power might line some owners’ pockets at the expense of placing a serious drag on a sector of the economy. So certain governmental structures create an environment necessary for businesses to flourish.
Despite the obvious benefits of rules and regulations businesses are engaged in a constant state of combat with government. Milestones such as the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887, the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890,) The Glass-Steagall Act (1932,) and the National Labor Relations Act (1935) all limited the ability of business to act independently. More recently many regulations have been added to protect the environment. In 1970, under President Nixon, the Environmental Protection Agency was created to reduce air and water pollution. Currently a host of new fishing regulations are being implemented under NOAA Fisheries and there is tighter oversight of deep water oil extraction by the new Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. The history is clear: the government’s role has restrained businesses activities. Whether such restraint is inadequate or excessive is subject to much debate.
If one views this through the lens of pure business profit, companies have had one lousy ride. Many people, both business owners and workers, buy into the belief that US regulations are excessive, stymie business and employment growth, and violate the Constitution. On the other hand, businesses frequently create problems when they are unregulated, unsupervised, or otherwise behave without regard to negative impacts. Sometimes the risk of an incident is very, very low, but when a problem occurs it does so with dramatic harm, causing substantial economic or physical injury and death.
As there is no clear methodology for pricing in the consequences to catastrophic impacts, and as businesses are concerned with profit, they tend to miscalculate risk when viewed from the public’s perspective. But our government, in fits and starts, has supported the general population’s needs for clean air and water, a stable financial system, sustainable agriculture, conservation of energy and food resources, safer automobiles and houses, collective bargaining, preventing discrimination in the workplace and on public transportation, and innumerable other societal needs.
It is probably true that these regulations at least initially have increased costs or other burdens, sometimes making it harder for a company to compete or make a profit at all. In a global perspective, where other competitors may operate in locations with far less regulation, this situation does put domestic companies at a competitive disadvantage. On the other hand there are innumerable examples of corporate excess or inaction causing terrible problems. Thus, governmental action is viewed both as too little and too much, depending upon one’s perspectives.
In our society we elect our representatives to do the business of governing, pass laws, set tax rates and distribute the proceeds to the entities that are required. These include the military for defense, the justice system for civil redress and criminal prosecutions, Social Security and Medicare for a safety net, Medicaid and public education, and so many more. The government provides permits for businesses to operate, leases mineral rights, provides industry subsidies and tax breaks, and often these behaviors are perceived to be inequitable. The government and economic system are so intertwined, so large and powerful, that it takes a huge effort and a great deal of time to change its course.
The difficulty of achieving a more equitable society is exacerbated by the natural tendency, indeed intense desire, of those that have the power not to relinquish it. Having acquired money, status and contacts, the key influencers can exercise their power to prevent everyone else from obtaining it. This, in a nutshell, is the deeper meaning of the 99%. Not only does the 1% have the money and opportunity but, according to Occupy, the 1% is doing whatever it takes to increase their power and riches, and to the extent that they exploit the 99%, deny the 99% their fair opportunities, that’s OK. The recent effort to reduce the countervailing power of unions is one important example. Providing billions of dollars to banks whose mortgage investments went bad while not delivering similar relief to homeowners who lost their jobs during the following recession is another. It is this excessive imposition of power that is no longer acceptable to Occupy and, believing that they are truly oppressed, they have decided to resist.
In aggregate there may be tens of thousands of participants in Occupy tent cities and demonstrations. As a plain statement of commitment, this is very impressive. Some might even suggest that there might be the seeds of a revolution in thought if not more. But due to Occupy’s philosophy of dispersed power and self-government by unanimous agreement it seems unlikely that Occupy would be able to take such action, even if many members wanted to.
Occupy is run by General Assemblies and decisions are made by consensus. Each camp is pretty much independent of the others, not so much by design as by philosophy. One fascinating result of this is that not only are the inhabitants of each Occupation diverse, but the Occupations are diverse too. There is no specific spokesperson, nor is there an official and articulated platform. However, at many General Assemblies and over the course of the weeks and months of camps, Occupiers exchange their views.
Based upon several informal conversations with Occupiers in Boston, and an interview with one of Occupy Boston’s founders who must remain anonymous, as there is no one person elected to speak upon the group’s behalf, Occupiers share a large number of beliefs. It is very important to note that these beliefs are not universal, but they are broadly held and have deep importance for the future of our country. Some of these beliefs are:
1) The Government does not represent the general public. And the Government is the same as Elected Officials. Because Elected Officials’ primary consideration is to keep their jobs, and in order to do so they need a great deal of money, they represent their donors’ interests, not their constituents’. Our Elected Officials do not respond to the general public about policy issues unless there is critical mass that will cause them to lose office.
2) Occupy sees government as supporting business over people in general and, more specifically by:
• not restricting or further taxing gigantic bonuses,
• not imposing higher taxes (or closing tax loopholes) on corporations and the wealthy
• not increasing protections for workers, and
• not regulating against pollution
3) Occupiers generally believe that the financial industry was the principal cause of the economic crises and that regulatory failure, in particular the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1932, was a predicate of the financial catastrophe.
4) As it is now configured, gamed against the 99% as it were, the capitalist system is a large problem. But capitalism – or a market economy – as a broad generality, is not necessarily a problem.
5) In addition Occupy views the government as having let the 99% down by not doing enough to protect the working class, via:
• Excellent education for all
• Job training for adults
• Failing to make the income tax more progressive
6) Occupiers generally believe that military spending is way too high. While perhaps not as widely held as some of the other beliefs, still a large number think that some level of active, or adventurous, foreign policy is acceptable but imposing our will over others is, generally speaking, bad. (Some notable Tea Partiers agree. "[W]e cannot stand against big government at home while supporting it abroad. We cannot talk about fiscal responsibility while spending trillions on occupying and bullying the rest of the world ... A return to the traditional U.S. foreign policy of active private engagement but government noninterventionism is the only alternative that can restore our moral and fiscal health.” (See Paul, Ron (August 27, 2010), "A Tea Party Foreign Policy", Foreign Policy)
7) Looking specifically at the last 10 years, Occupiers believe that our adventurous foreign policy, so tied as it has been to the exercise of military power, has caused us to incur huge
• Financial cost
• Human cost, and has
• Damaged our reputation and
• Diminished our ability to influence policy and events elsewhere.
Even if the last is not true then the distractions we have inflicted upon ourselves have limited our ability to focus upon much larger problems, for example, the refusal of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and Israel’s continued political domination by ultra-religious minorities, resulting in its disastrous settlement policy.
8) A significant portion of the defense budget should be reallocated, Occupiers believe. A few numbers are illuminating:
2011 Federal Budget (in billions) (note that different sources #’s vary)
Total Spending 3,830
Total Revenue 2,531
Deficit 1,299
Defense (total) 903
Iraq War 51
Afghanistan War 119
Social Security 748
Medicare 494
Medicaid & Related 347
Other Social Related 361
Interest 230
Education 130
Unemployment Ins 121
Other 596
The cost of the two current wars is 19% of the entire defense budget. It is 31% greater than our education budget. It is half the Medicaid and related budget that pays for health care for economically disadvantage families and children. How do we rationalize this much money and this much suffering for what appear to be modest or inconsequential gains in security? How do we rationalize this spending instead of making an investment in the education of our kids and the health of our working poor, many of whom provide crucial labor performing menial but essential tasks such as harvesting fruits and vegetables or performing sanitation duties? Occupiers ask those questions and answer, “You can’t.”
9) Occupy supports a strongly progressive system of taxation. They focus in on the richest one percent whom they believe do not pay their fair share. Putting aside any characterizations of what is fair or not, and merely examining the numbers, one can see that Occupy has a point, at least from the perspective of practicality, as in get the low hanging fruit. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities published a set of charts illustrating the impacts of the Bush tax cuts on the economy. (cbpp.org) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/08/how-bush-tax-cuts-economy_n_873245.html#s289289&title=Effect_On_Economic) According to the CBPP
the Bush era tax cuts will generate about 25% of our deficit in 2012, increasing to about 50% in 7 years if projections hold. CBPP numbers also show that the increase in employment due to the Bush tax cuts was less than 1 percent vs. nearly 3 percent for the other post WWII economic expansions, and the GDP increase was perhaps 60% of other post WWII expansions. It is argued that the disparity is due to the Bush tax cuts disproportionately benefitting the wealthy. So making our tax system strongly progressive is an Occupy priority.
10) Occupiers generally believe that lack of appropriate regulation contributed to or caused the recession, thus leading to large numbers of the working class losing their jobs, their retirement savings, their homes, and their dignity. They have much heavy weight support in this matter. Many renowned economists assert that the major factors in the crash were the collapse of the housing bubble and the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act, which principally prohibited commercial banks from engaging in securities transactions. When Glass Steagall was repealed in 1999 many banks entered the investment and brokerage businesses as a way to increase profits without significantly increasing their reserves. When the housing industry started to collapse the tens of thousands of at risk loans, many of which had been written with fraudulent documentation, then repackaged as securities and held by arms of the giant banks, became worthless. Banks had insufficient capital to operate and the Federal government became the last (and best) source of operating capital. Occupiers may be understood to view better (and sometimes more) regulation as necessary in order to prevent an economic (or natural resource) disaster.
11) Occupy has embraced a philosophy of multiculturalism and has welcomed people of all faiths, but the boundary between religion and government is uncertain. However, there is a strong sense that placing religion before government is problematic.
12) Occupy is not likely to become a functioning political party. Tea Party voter enthusiasm propelled a number of candidates to office for the first time and there is now a Tea Party Caucus in the House of Representatives. It has 62 members, all Republicans. Occupy seems to be the opposite. It uses a General Assembly to achieve consensus rather than a majority vote system, and as such it is rather unusual for a Western political organization. The most prominent example of something similar is the Loya Jirga used by tribal leaders in Afghanistan. And Occupy, rather than forming a political organization, seems to be committed to publicizing their key concerns as a group by regular and very public demonstrations. On top of that, due to the focus upon the efforts of the group, it is unlikely that Occupy would endorse a candidate. And putting an exclamation point on some early Occupy supporters’ concerns about where Occupy is going and what it might accomplish (or to put it a different way, how they might benefit from it,) it is also unlikely that Occupy could find a spokesperson to make such an endorsement.
So where does this leave them, the Occupiers, and the huge unrepresented middle of America? If the 99% is no longer represented, will it remove its consent to be governed? And if it is no longer willing to give consent to be governed, is the United States nearing an end. I don’t believe that, and from my observations, Occupiers have strong patriotism at their roots. It’s a love of country, appreciation of democracy, willingness to participate and advocate, to demonstrate and to vote, which binds the Occupiers.
The next steps are complex and involve laws made both by Congress and the Court. Key systems will need to be changed to break the connection between donors’ interest and elected officials’ interest in election and/or reelection. At a fundamental level, only by changing the system so that elected officials’ interests better align with the broad general public will inequality of income and opportunity be reduced. The most obvious ways to break the connection are campaign finance and the revolving door. Along with political donations, big business and the wealthy influence regulatory, environmental, other policy matters and taxation through scores of lobbyists.
For many years the laws have been relaxed to allow more money from a wider set of donors to finance political campaigns. This culminated in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) in which the US Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring political broadcasts in candidate elections when those broadcasts are funded by corporations or unions. One can imagine a system in which only public campaign funds are legal to use and where collecting a certain reasonable number of signatures is the only way to access public campaign funds, thus removing financial donors entirely. A second way to address the issue of campaign finance is to eliminate politics as a career, thus removing the problem of funding reelection campaigns. Implementing a set of term limits would partially address this problem.
Another practice that must be changed or eliminated is the all too common step from the Hill (or State Legislatures) to the comfy confines of the 1,000+ lobbying firms who represent (mostly) the interests of big business and their wealthy owners. No less than Jack Abramoff (see http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-18/-willing-vassals-in-congress-do-lobbyist-bidding-jack-abramoff.html) has advocated for “a lifetime ban on members and staff lobbying Congress or associating in any way with for-profit lobbying efforts.” Perks both during and after Elected Officials and Staff serve must be removed. At least that would level the playing field somewhat.
Both these systemic changes have the potential to yield elected officials that better represent the interests of the working people, the 99%. In the long term, perhaps one or more generations, such changes might take place. But that would require the significant application of organized political will with leadership both motivated and motivating, willing to engage the media with slogans, to debate with sound bites, to get dirty in the trenches. Occupiers have shown themselves ready to get dirty in the parks. Bet on leaders emerging.
