POLITICS OCTOBER 21, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
This article is a contribution to ‘Liberalism and Occupy Wall Street,’ A TNR Symposium.
The basic economic premise of modern American liberalism, as I understand it, is that with appropriate regulation and taxation a market economy can be made broadly beneficial to the overwhelming majority of citizens. This stands in contrast to the pure capitalist view that a rising tide will inevitably lift all boats, and to the radical claim that market economies are inherently immiserating.
The liberal view is, I think, correct. But it’s clear that for the 20 years between 1980 and 2000 what was possible in theory wasn’t necessarily happening in practice, and for the past decade it hasn’t been working at all. The story is familiar, but worth repeating. We’re seeing not just growing inequality, but actually falling wages and incomes at the median. People are outraged—and rightly so—that the economy and economic policymakers are failing them.
Faced with these realities, the TNR staff editorial on the subject feels distinctly like an op-ed penned eleven years ago about anti-globalization protestors, put on ice, and then re-animated with a hasty rewrite that fails to consider the actual political and economic circumstances.
The notion that Occupy Wall Street is a fundamentally radical anti-capitalist movement is completely without foundation. Not only is it odd for TNR to take a harder anti-communist line than, say, Lech Walesa, but this view misunderstands the basic nature of a fluid and rapidly growing movement. The participation of some radicals in the initial organization of the Zuccotti Park protest shouldn’t distract from the fact that the movement has grown by attracting a diverse set of adherents united primarily by an appropriate sense of grievance.
And judging from the We Are The 99 Percent Tumblr, these people aren’t a conspiracy to overthrow capitalism, they’re ordinary people struggling with hard times and looking for answers. The labor unions who’ve hopped on the 99 Percent bandwagon aren’t waging a battle to abolish private enterprise, they’re participating in a movement to say that what’s happening right now in the United States is unacceptable.
Beyond a critique, any movement for social and political change ultimately needs solutions and it is true that some of the solutions offered by some protestors are unsound. This is all the more reason that liberals with confidence in liberal solutions should show up and try to persuade people to champion a more sustainable set of economic policies.
But the alternative of staying aloof out of some kind of fussy disdain for drum circles helps nobody. On the contrary, it’s worth reflecting on the idea that the instinct toward ideological police actions represented by TNR’s editorial has had a malign influence on American politics for years. Liberalism, in its triumphant years, represented the “vital center” of American politics. The silence of further-left voices over the past decade has merely served to marginalize liberalism, creating an atmosphere in which center-left technocrat Barack Obama can be tarred as a radical socialist.
The fact of the matter is that the American economy isn’t working for average Americans, and hasn’t been for some time. Meanwhile, the corporate executive class has gotten quite adept at standing in solidarity against effective regulation of the financial system, against solutions to our environmental problems, and against progressive taxes. The time is right for people who aren’t happy about that to stand up and be heard.
Matthew Yglesias is a blogger and fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
10 comments
Absoutely. All of that is self evident, which makes the need to write it as a counter to TNR's editorial, frankly depressing. OWS has diverse aims and is ideologically heterogeneous, which TNR and other media entities struggle with, as they are consumed with Republican vs Democrat/Liberal vs Conservative. If it doesn't fit into this dichotomy then it has to be inherently anarchist utopian and anti-capitalist. This is why TNR has no problem covering the Tea Party, as it clearly does fit into this traditional narrative. TNR will have to up its game as movements of the future are going to reflect peoples increasing political sophistication, which is being informed by the web. Ironically, today's ideological complexity can be summed up quite effectively with new binary propaganda: Bondholders vs the rest of us. There's almost daily examples to back this up. Not least the latest scam by BOA, who is moving risky derivatives from its holding company to its taxpayer ensured deposit depository. With the help of the Fed mind and against the wishes of FDIC. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/10/bank-of-america-deathwatch-moves-risky-derivatives-from-holding-company-to-taxpayer-backstopped-depositors.html I haven't seen anything in TNR on this. There is a way out of the Great Recession. The solution isn't complicated, at all. It's called Debt Destruction. The trillions and trillions cannot and will not be paid. It's economic growth vs bank solvency. The govts of the world could step in with deposit only guarantees and temporary public banks (why we can't have permanent public banks is beyond me) while letting the banks and shadow banks fail. TNR should spent its editorial time exploring this solution instead of calling desperate people hippies.
- IggyPop
October 22, 2011 at 8:24am
The author writes: "And judging from the We Are The 99 Percent Tumblr, these people aren’t a conspiracy to overthrow capitalism, they’re ordinary people struggling with hard times and looking for answers." Of course, the 99% forget that in the context of the world, they ARE the 1%. Anyone making over $45K is in the top 1% of world earners. How would the 99% like having themselves taxed at 50% so that the farmer in Africa can have clean water? They would not like it. They would fight this confiscation of their wealth with more drums, hackeysacks and protests. Ergo, they are hypocrites, simply wanting even more for doing even less. Envy takes on so many forms.
- seattleeng
October 22, 2011 at 1:39pm
Yea, "rational response" here are some rational responders: From Hollywood on Wall Street: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/opinion/sunday/bruni-occupy-wall-street-and-hollywood.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print
- arnon
October 22, 2011 at 10:15pm
Oh jeez, seattleeng with his cross-cultural canard again. Sure, because there is global inequality, we shouldn't argue for more equality in the US and it's not a problem that most of the economic gains in recent decades have gone to those who were already doing spectacularly well while median income stagnated. Those issues are obviated because some people don't have access to clean drinking water. Right. "they are hypocrites, simply wanting even more for doing even less." Factually wrong. The productivity of the average US worker has continued to increase. Their incomes have not--except for those at the very top. So it seems to me that they want more for, well, doing more.
- dsimon
October 24, 2011 at 12:36am
Wrong, DSimon. The wages of the middle class HAVE been growing and have outpaced inflation. Except for the last two years of course. So, your summary is "I agree with the 99% as long as it's a bunch of white-bread spoiled college kids that are trying to grab more. But as soon as it's someone NOT like me trying to grab more, then forget it. I don't agree with it anymore." Yes, it's clear DSimon.
- seattleeng
October 24, 2011 at 12:55pm
seattleeng: "The wages of the middle class HAVE been growing and have outpaced inflation. Except for the last two years of course." Oh, let's just ignore the last two years, then. And even before then, the degree by which they "outplaced inflaction" was minimal, just 4% from 1990 to 2005, while CEO pay tripled. http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1 So worker productivity went up as they got very little for their efforts, and executives--including those who nearly blew up the global economy--did multiples better on top of an already unjustifiable baseline (I have a hard time imagining a job someone would do for $5 million that they would not do for $2.5 million.) It's not contested, to my knowledge, that two-thirds of our economic gains in the last economic expansion (2002-07) went to the top 1% of earners. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3309 Rightly or not, with numbers like that it's no wonder people are thinking that the system is rigged. "So, your summary is 'I agree with the 99% as long as it's a bunch of white-bread spoiled college kids that are trying to grab more. But as soon as it's someone NOT like me trying to grab more, then forget it. I don't agree with it anymore.'" I advocating raising taxes on people like myself, so please spare me your patronizing attitude. And you might think about actually talking to people at OWS. They're a lot more than a bunch of white-bread spoiled college kids. And even if they were just that, that wouldn't have anything to do with whether they are right or wrong, so please spare me yet another canard.
- dsimon
October 24, 2011 at 2:22pm
The protestors cry: CEO pay has grown faster than compensation for wage earners, therefore Western Civilization deserves to be destroyed. Forgive me, but I just don't follow that reasoning. I agree that some CEOs are paid too much. But to be a "poor'' American with two TVs, a microwave, an automobile, medical care, and roof over his head - is that really so miserable a fate? If the US is so unjust why is it that so many people are literally dying to get into this country? If socialism (or social democracy) is the answer why are so many Europeans coming to this country in search of opportunity (or at least were until Obama became president).
- bulbman1066
October 25, 2011 at 12:12am
Leftist believe, or more likely pretend to believe, that it is better that everyone be poor than that some are fabulously wealthy while most others do pretty well. Why equality of income should trump all other values is a mystery. Consider a tribe of impecunious nomads wandering the desert. Their incomes vary a bit according to status within the tribe. But compared to that of the US their income distribution is pretty level. Are liberals prepared to say that the nomads' society is morally superior to ours? Are liberals prepared to say that civilization is a Bad Thing? Are liberals prepared to make virtues out of envy, covetousness and spite? If so God help us all.
- bulbman1066
October 25, 2011 at 12:53am
bulbman: "The protestors cry: CEO pay has grown faster than compensation for wage earners, therefore Western Civilization deserves to be destroyed....Leftist believe, or more likely pretend to believe, that it is better that everyone be poor than that some are fabulously wealthy while most others do pretty well." Not a shred of evidence that this is what "leftists" believe, much less those at OWS. Just read the article: "And judging from the We Are The 99 Percent Tumblr, these people aren’t a conspiracy to overthrow capitalism, they’re ordinary people struggling with hard times and looking for answers." It's not that CEO pay has grown faster; it's increased exponentially while average wages have barely budged. Seems to me that most if not all of the OWS crowd are looking for a form of capitalism that works for more than those who are already at the top, not that everyone should be poor. "Why equality of income should trump all other values is a mystery." I don't know anyone who believes this either. But it must be nice to pretend that people believe it when it supports one's predetermined world view. "If the US is so unjust why is it that so many people are literally dying to get into this country? If socialism (or social democracy) is the answer why are so many Europeans coming to this country in search of opportunity (or at least were until Obama became president)." Unjust in the US can still be a lot better than average life in most third world countries. And the US allows for higher highs and lower lows than many European countries, so if you're looking to make it big, this may still be the place to be. But if you're really interested in social mobility, your chances of moving up are better in Europe than here (though you may do better here if you get into the top top category). And these trends were in place long before Obama became president, so let's not pretend that he somehow managed to change the nature of our economic system in a mere two years. The fact that life here may still be better than many places abroad is hardly a reason for not addressing the claim that our system in recent years, or decades, has not benefited the vast majority of the population but has benefited a very small and already affluent slice.
- dsimon
October 25, 2011 at 9:04am
"The notion that Occupy Wall Street is a fundamentally radical anti-capitalist movement is completely without foundation." -M.Y. I'm sympathetic to OWS (and far from a radical anti-capitalist myself), but Yglesias's statement is just wrong. OWS is a movement that was started by Adbusters and has featured the likes of Slavoj Zizek. Many of the people in Zucotti park right now, of course, are "radically anti-capitalist." The movement was certainly spearheaded by people who'd (proudly) fall under that banner. So no, the "notion" isn't "completely without foundation." Yglesais could (should?) argue for why the movement is now encompassing a much political broader spectrum, but his sentence quoted above simply isn't true. The anti-Iraq-War protests were organized by the egregious (pro North Korea!) ANSWER. OWS was spearheaded by anarchists and anti-capialists (many young, ignorant and silly) at the behest of a radical magazine that's, frankly, obsessed with Israel. These are facts. You can gloss over them if you want, but you can't just deny them. There were communists in the American Civil Rights movement. There was all sorts of rhetorical and political silliness - especially at the college level - involved in the anti Vietnam War protests. A movement isn't necessarily defined by its worst or most naive elements. That should be the argument. It would certainly be the honest one.
- mtinora@me.com
October 25, 2011 at 2:56pm