Nina Easton, Mayor of Wrongville

It’s scheduling week here at the hospital; the twice-yearly week long exercise of figuring out which classes go where on the master schedule of my wing. We were fortunate in that the planning itself only took a day, but now we have the rest of the week to finish paperwork, write new course descriptions, and so forth. For me, this doesn’t take too long, and so I was left enough time at lunch today to check out what was going on around the internet. And that is when I found this op-ed.

First of all, let’s ignore the fact that the author, Nina Easton, is a conservative. I’m not a big fan of the “They disagree with me, so they must be wrong” mindset that has infected my country in years past, and so I try to combat it whenever possible. For instance- if she’s worked for Fortune, the LA Times and the Boston Globe, she’s probably at least fairly on top of her game. So don’t brush her off just because she happens to be a conservative talking about the virtues of “The 1%”.

Nope, we’re going to assume for the sake of this post that Ms. Easton is a purely non-biased reporter, speaking her mind without a political agenda behind her.

And we’re going to assume that  she’s unbiased because if we don’t, and we believe that she’s just a conservative mouthpiece, then her writing is immediately as invalid as Glenn Beck’s or Keith Olberman’s.

And we’re going to assume that she’s unbiased, because even if we do, she is still completely wrong.

Ms. Easton’s article is based on the same tired assumption that a lot of conservatives have been making, and that is that the furor surrounding the One Percent is based on jealousy. She bases her fifth paragraph on the notion that people who’re mad at the mega-rich want their money stripped from them and moved into their own community, like they want President Obama to swing in like some governmental Robin Hood to give the poor their due.

But I don’t think that’s what this anger Easton complains of is about. People want larger salaries of their own, but I don’t think they want someone else’s money. This isn’t about being angry at someone because they’re successful, it’s about being mad at someone because they became successful at the expense of their workers. CEOs that continue to take enormous bonuses immediately after laying off some percentage of their labor force. Finance moguls who profit by cheating their clients and then escape any significant punishment. These seem to be what the “99%ers” are really upset about.

“But there are communists at the Occupy rallies that want all the rich to hand over all their money!” Yes, and there are Secessionists at NRA rallies that still talk about preparing for the inevitable war between the government and their local “militia”. Spare me your generalizations about the Occupy Communists and I’ll spare you my vitriol for your Rambo Wannabes. There are crazies at every rally.

But I digress. I’ll counterpoint my own argument: CEOs taking huge salaries and bonuses.

Global finance is fucking complicated. I’m personally of the opinion that monetary sums in the neighborhood of the trillions-of-dollars-mark is actually imaginary, but some people are smart enough to actually finagle this possibly-imaginary system to produce real-world results. People that can do that do deserve big salaries, because if they don’t get paid, yeah, they’re gonna go find someone who’ll shell out the cheddar to please them.

But. Just because John Q. Employee doesn’t understand how the price of grain in India affects the rubber trade in South America, that doesn’t mean that he deserves to get the axe so his boss-of-bosses can get another couple thousand on their bonus check. When this happens to one person, or in one company, its unfortunate… but the now-jobless employees could just go get jobs elsewhere. When this happens on a national scale and becomes the status quo, however, people become embittered on a national scale, and that bitterness becomes the status quo. Don’t act so goddamn surprised that people are up in arms over the super-rich when it seems like every CEO is doing this.

Earlier on than this, she states in her third paragraph that “The 1% club stands accused, accurately, of more than doubling its share of the nation's income since 1980. By 2007 it controlled nearly 24% of total income, the second highest in history, after 1929. (In 2009 its share dropped to 17%, suggesting that recessions aren't necessarily kind to the rich.)”

This is not an argument I would make if I were trying to draw support to my point of view. The richest 1%’s collective bargaining power dropped from ONE QUARTER OF ALL AMERICAN WEALTH to just a paltry SEVENTEEN PERCENT? Boo fucking hoo. If I were her editor I would have deleted this paragraph from her entry so hard the computer would have exploded. I would have then taken the ashes and thrown them into the goddamn sea, just so nobody would ever read what Nina Easton almost perpetrated on my point of view.

Easton states in her fourth paragraph that “Railing about the 1% club has become shorthand for expressing outrage not only over growing income disparity but also about the state of the nation's working class.” I would agree with that as a one-off statement, but since it isn’t a one-off statement, it can only be viewed as the most accurate thing Nina Easton has accidentally said all day.

She notes in her sixth paragraph that Wall Street bonuses have dropped “18,000, or 13%, to $121,150. It is the second lowest average in the last eight years, topping only the $100,850 of 2008. This estimate tracks cash payments and doesn't include stock options or other forms of deferred compensation that haven't been realized.” Again, this is not something I would say out loud if I were trying to assuage the malice directed at the One Percent. A bonus of $100,000 is still nearly four times what I make as a salary, after taxes, and I sure as shit don’t get stock options.
Again, my job is different than a Wall Street suit’s, but as long as we’re comparing, I’d like to see him swing by my unit and handle some of our boys. Just sayin’.

She does make some good points; she states that there are some legitimate reasons why the One Percent are making so much freaking money these days, such as technological advances that allow companies to globalize in ways that simply were not possible even twenty years ago. (Her comparison is to a performer in the 1600s. I'm not sure why.)
She also cites the fact that womens’ salaries are rising, and she states that if you take a random well-paid One Percenter male, odds are he has an equally educated female counterpart in house as well. With her salary on the up and up, she claims that it’s only natural for the rich to become richer without any devious dealings going on- and on the face value of that factor, at least, she could be right.

But unfortunately, while she’s right in isolated pockets, she’s wrong on the foundation of her article. Like so many others, she falls into the trap of thinking that this “populist rage” is based on jealousy, and not out of our observation of how warped the system is in favor of the rich. She touts the belief that the rich are faulted for their success, and fails to even acknowledge -no, outright denies- that the rich have become as successful as they are in large part by exploiting their workers and clients. That’s where this “populist rage” is coming from (which, I’ll add, wasn’t generating a peep of protest from conservatives when the Tea Party was the new thing, but that’s another rant). I’m not trying to defend Occupy as a movement, as it is largely a worthless endeavor these days, but the underlying sentiment?
That isn't going anywhere.

Occupy Adulthood

I made an attempt recently to try and stir up conversation on the Occupy Wall Street Forums. I'd been encouraged by the explosive growth of the Occupy movement, and believed that it could be the starting point for a new liberal groundswell. Coming from a highly leftist house such as mine, I relished the idea of something that could push spineless Democrats out of Congress and replace them with true liberals- people who could, and would, compromise in good faith, but who'd also stand their ground and kick some ass when need be.
I approached the forum cautiously, and after a few days of observing where the plethora of threads usually went, I decided to cast my line into the water. My call was for campaign finance reform; in my opinion, change could start in the streets but it would eventually have to move into the halls of power, and we'd need to have complete accountability (see also: transparency) of our lawmakers to ensure they were working for us and not secretly playing us for some unknown multinational conglomerate. I assumed that such a cause would be lauded, and that eventually the movement as a whole would start turning in that direction (not because of my posting, mind you, just as a natural change of direction).

What I encountered, however, was hostility.

First I was told that Occupy was proud to have no representatives or speakers. Then I was told that there never would be any leaders of the movement, because everything was consensus-driven; all decisions made by Occupy would only take place if 100% of the people present at any General Assembly (Occupy's daily decision-making meeting, open to the public) agreed to undertake that course of action. And lastly, I was informed that because the power of the 1% is illegitimate, that any demands made to that 1% (be they lawmakers, corporation CEOs, mayors, etc) would legitimize their power... and therefore, Occupy would simply deny that they exist as power-holders at all. The movement would remain one that would shed light in darkness, and nothing more.
This refusal to take on legislative action seemed to hold true regardless of how the issue was phrased. "Demands" would not be made, "solutions" would not be offered, "ideas" would not be put forward. Occupy would continue to protest in cacophony, but seemed resolute in its collective decision not to move beyond that.

This is about when I decided that the movement was far too happy to remain in its childhood and adolescence, and I left, lest I get caught up in trolling wars.
The movement has to issue demands. It has to pick leaders. They keep claiming that they are some kind of "third option" to the typical houses of influence, and that those who disagree simply cannot fathom what Occupy is accomplishing... and to that I agree. I can't fathom it. People are sitting around, banging drums, blocking up traffic and now, mixing it up with police. A few politicians are attempting to co-op the movement, but that comes with the risk that Occupy will only ever be represented by outsiders. If the movement doesn't sanction spokespeople itself, other people will start speaking for them, and part of their message will be lost in translation.

It truly appears to me as if the protesters are just content to sit around and cause a ruckus, but never move beyond that. Why? I can't say for sure, but it smacks of the fact that politics are boring. What's cooler to say- "I protested in the streets today", or "I engaged in six hours of debate about the legalities of Super PACs in the statehouse"? Politics is slow. The process requires compromise. It is not glamorous. And yet, it is entirely necessary. Because for all of Occupy's claims that they are a third option to the usual parties and processes, such claims cannot be true. There are only two ways to bring about national change- lawfully or unlawfully. There are only two ways to stage a protest- peacefully or violently. There is no middle ground in this. My worry is, the longer Occupy throws its adolescent temper tantrum without also undertaking legislative reforms, the more chance there is for more Occupy Oakland incidents to take place. The longer Occupy acts like childish thugs, and refuses to take the careful, measured action of an adult, the more chance there is for it to stop being (mostly) peaceful, and start getting really ugly.

Can I Get an OCC-U-PY

I went to an Occupy D.C. protest this past Friday. It was an interesting experience- I hadn't done any protesting since President Bush's inauguration, and I was only a teenager then. We posed for some pictures (that arial shot of people making a giant "99%" with their bodies? I'm in that. Left-hand side of the second 9. ^^), marched to the US Chamber of Commerce, marched a little more and then headed back to the square we were occupying. I left around the time someone got on stage and started singing about all the great communists he'd known... wasn't really my scene anymore, at that point, but I think it was good that I went.

Anyhow, a lot of talk has been going on about just what the Occupy movement is. So, to find out, I've started poking around their message board to see just what's up. It move pretty fast, so I'd be surprised if any of my original topics generate much in the way of a response yet, but just reading the boards provides a glimpse into the evolution of this group. Amid a lot of the "This movement is terrible!" and "Capitalism is evil!" posts, one of the topics I've seen a couple times is this:
"Occupy needs to work with the Tea Party".

I hope I start hearing that more and more often.