Posted on 10/12/2011 10:26:31 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
A mixture of undesirablesthieves, plug-uglies, degenerates. Thats how in 1932 a newspaper described the veterans who were marching upon Washington, demanding their promised bonuses. There was some truth in the description: The marchers included a few undesirables. But the majority were simply people who were struggling and wanted their fair share. Their actions would lay the groundwork for what became the 1930s left, which helped revive a floundering liberalism and make possible the New Deal.
Stop by Zuccotti Park or any of the other spaces across the country that Occupy Wall Street has claimed in recent weeks and youll find a similarly motley group, with some modern-day undesirablesnot thieves and degenerates, perhaps, but at least a few anarchists, communists, and bigots, along with plenty of funny-looking people making funny-sounding music. Thats how protest movements almost invariably emerge: The first to join them are the ones most willing to break with the conventions of mainstream society.
But at these demonstrations youll also find plenty of people whove come simply because they belong to what has come to known as the Other 99 Percent. They are among the growing number of Americans struggling financially, even as the very wealthy flourish. They can't find jobs. They can't pay their student loans, their mortgages or medical bills. They've fallen way behind and see no way to get ahead. Their agenda is muddled and in many cases their thinking is, too. But they know that something has gone very wrong in their country and instead of blaming illegal immigrants or Barack Hussein Obama, they are pointing their finger at Americas plutocratic minority.
Many of the same people joined groups like Moveon.org in the early decade. They protested against George W. Bush and the Iraq War, and they thronged to the Obama campaign in 2008. More broadly, they are part of the progressive ferment that began fifty years ago, subsided during the great conservative counter-reaction that began in the 1970s, but that has begun to swell again in the last two decades. They care about human rights, clean air, gay marriage. They put people before profits, as the Clinton campaign put it in 1992. They are egalitarian, sometimes to a fault. After Obama took office, they rested their hopes for change on his presidency. He was, after all, the candidate of change. But they have been sorely disappointed, and in the wake of the sordid negotiations over the debt ceiling, some of them have taken their frustration to the streets.
The protesters are better at generating slogans than programs. Theres no clear agenda, but instead a hodgepodge of grievances and demands. Some of those demands, like a reform of campaign finance, speak directly to the matter at hand. Some of them, like protecting animal rights or ending alleged American colonialism, do not. But the heart of the movement is its focus on the inequality of wealth and power, and the way that it has undermined American democracy. Many liberals recognize those values and have, with some caution, embraced the movement. They are wise to do so.
LIKE THE LABOR MOVEMENT, or the old Populists and Socialists of Eugene Debs, liberalism arose in the early twentieth century as a reaction to the excesses of laissez-faire capitalism. But instead of trying to overthrow capitalism, as radicals did, it sought to create a more egalitarian version of it.
In that way, liberals and the left have always had a complicated, symbiotic relationship. Franklin Roosevelt disdained Huey Longs Share the Wealth movement and was probably not excited about armed farmers preventing foreclosures or about striking workers. But unlike Herbert Hoover, who turned to Douglas MacArthur to drive the Bonus Marchers out of Washington, Roosevelt responded to these pressures from below not with troops, but with positive legislationindeed, it was precisely Roosevelts liberalism that inclined him to do so.
The movements saw it as their task to force Roosevelts hand; he, in turn, understood his mission as the transformation of their sometimes unreasonable demands into the great reforms of the Second New Deal. And that is how it was throughout the 20th century. Social security, the minimum wage, Medicare, environmental protection, the governments commitment to civil and sexual equalityall these came out of liberalisms interaction with the left.
Sometimes, liberals have hemmed and hawed about protests, pleading that things were complex and that change was too difficult. The left, on the other hand has sometimes dismissed liberals as tools of corporate capitalism. But this kind of suspicion and derision has not benefitted either side. Without liberalism, the left and its movements silp into extremism that ends up validating their harshest opponents. That happened in the 1920s when the Communists vied with the Socialists for leadership of the left; it happened again during the late 1960s when the New Left veered out of control. The converse is equally true: Without leftwing ferment from below, liberalism becomes powerless in the face of business and the organized right. That happened in the 1920s and the 1980s and in the early part of this centuryand it threatens to happen again now.
Dont some of the Wall Street protesters show illiberal impulses? Yes and more will do so in the future. What is there to say about an assemblage of protestors in Atlanta denying Congressman John Lewis the right to speak because, in a fit of egalitarian pique, they didnt want to acknowledge that one voice might have more authority than others? Or members of an extreme antiwar clique free-riding on the Occupy protests and invading the Air and Space Museum, a favorite weekend destination for visiting tourists and their children, in order to protest a display of drones?
These actions are not on a par with Tea Party members spitting on Rep. Emanuel Cleaver or heckling gay congressman Barney Frank. They pose no serious threat to civility or order. Most important, they do not seem emblematic of the movement as a whole. But they sully the left and, by the way, alienate would-be supporters. Those actions, and the minority of people behind them, deserve condemnation.
Parsing out genuine grievance and popular protest from the sectarian eccentricity, adolescent theatricality, and narrow self-interest will be an ongoing projecta difficult one, yes, but also a worthwhile one. The world is in the grips of severe economic downturn, causing considerable human misery; an alliance of business and conservative Republicans threatens to make matters much worse. The Occupy Wall Street movements may not survive the onset of cold weather and rain. But, along with Elizabeth Warrens fledgling Senate campaign in Massachusetts and the continuing protest against autocratic government in Ohio and Wisconsin, they represent a genuine spark of grassroots political actiona chance, finally, to redeem the promise of Obamas 2008 campaign. We have to make sure we dont squander it.
Yeah. You libs should embrace those freeloading pigs. I’m staying as far away from that stinking mass as I can get.
I would like to know who was the guy leading the pack in the famous video. They say there are no leaders, but he was certainly running that show. Who is he?
The WWI vets earned their bonuses, all these turds have earned is a kick in the ass.
That’s right—only a dimwitted idiot could come up with comparing these flabbed brained “never done nothings” to combat veterans.
Investigation of the Bonus Army.
At any rate, the vets were owed money by the government. They just wanted to get it sooner, rather than later because of the bad economic conditions.
The author doesn't even get his facts straight.
“eat the rich”???
I don’t get it. Surely that has some meaning other than what I think it means.
Why doesn’t that guilt-ridden idiot that inherited money just cut a check to a charity?
Just lazy six ways from Sunday.
You really think she actually inherited money? The sign is a lie, trying to drum up sympathy for the movement.
Yeah, not quite (since some, if not a majority of the ows protestors hate our military/and the US).
JJS
Girl on the right-I don’t see why she can’t voluntarily give all her trust fund money to the government, her fellow hippies, church, chairtity or anything without trying to force the goverment to take more of everyone’s money (and jobs). It just doesn’t make sense..
COWS = Communists Occupying Wall Street
If that punks sign is not a lie, there was a time when people donated money to the charity that inspired them. First off, this person doesn’t have a clue because she didn’t actually earn a dime, her dead relative did. Secondly it show how incompetent and worthless she is that she can’t distribute her wealth herself. She is pleading with a massive Gov’t to do it for her. What an ignorant, sheltered b!tch.
Yes, Mr. Liberal, I think that's a perfect plan for you to endorse
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.