Occupy Wall Street will force financial reassessment, effect real change

By Isaac Rubin

Critics of Occupy Wall Street have labeled the movement as socialist, Marxist and anarchist. They’ve gone so far as to call its members lunatics, shaggy soldiers and petulant little children “bent on destroying capitalism.” These criticisms are misguided and serve no purpose but to undermine the movement’s importance as a major political effort to shift the focus of our democracy back to the “99 percent.”Many journalists, political figures and corporate entities have blatantly insulted the movement; they’ve even questioned the personal hygiene of the movement’s members. These insults illustrate inconsequential details of OWS’s demographics while ignoring its substantive— if vague—beliefs.

Contrary to the charges of many critics, the majority of the public agrees with OWS and its beliefs. 54 percent of Americans said they either agree or mostly agree with OWS demands, according to a poll by Time magazine.

Any perception of OWS as radical is misguided. Only four percent of protesters want the movement to achieve radical redistribution of wealth, and only six percent say income inequality is what frustrates them most about the political process, according to The Wall Street Journal’s Doug Schoen. A much more substantial 35 percent said they want the movement to be the democratic equivalent of the Tea Party—that is, exert enough influence to shift the political spectrum to the left. Taken holistically, OWS’s aims aren’t nearly as radical as some members of the media and politicians have claimed.

Though OWS’s demands appear scattered and nebulous, protesting economic inequality is a defining characteristic of the movement. Considering the current economic recession, the protests are completely justified. A worker earning minimum wage makes roughly $16,000 per year, while Lehman Brothers CEO Dick Fuld made more than $533.7 million from 2000 to 2007, according to a 2010 paper published in “The Yale Journal on Regulation.” Sixty-eight percent of millionaires support raising taxes on themselves, according to a recent survey by Spectrem Group.

Warren Buffett has been a particularly vocal advocate of raising taxes on the mega-rich. In an October opinion published in the New York Times, Buffett wrote, “my friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.” Sharing wealth for the benefit of the majority is an idea supported by many wealthy citizens, further justifying tax hikes during our current economic crisis.

Members of OWS also “vow to end the monied corruption of our democracy,” according to the movement’s website. Members support tax hikes for the rich and an end to government bailouts and subsidies for “too-big-to-fail” corporations. OWS has yet to demonstrate a clear method of how they would resolve these issues, but the protests are valuable more in the problems they illuminate than in the solutions they fail to present.

Fox senior media correspondent Dennis Kneale labels OWS supporters as “unwashed and miffed masses,” calling them “the self-pitying, the self-entitled and the self-serving.” Like many others, Kneale prefers to dismiss the movement altogether rather than actually address the issues that OWS is fighting. Stereotyping and insulting are easy ways to avoid discussing the goals of the movement. The scale and sheer power of Occupy Wall Street will force a total reassessment of the role of corporate dollars in the nation’s democracy.

Occupy Wall Street is disorganized, lacks cohesive objective

By Paris Rogers

Everyone has seen videos and pictures of Occupy Wall Street’s witty signs in New York, Chicago, London, Paris, D.C. and hundreds of other cities. Its members demand real change, but how exactly, do they plan to create their social justice?

The members of OWS consider their movement to be in the same vein as the Tahrir Square uprising of the Arab Spring. In reality, it doesn’t come close to having the same significance or cohesion. The events of the Arab Spring were impressive because of the clarity of the protesters’ demands and the speed with which the movement gained support from a large majority of citizens. OWS has neither of these qualities.

That lack of clarity is a primary issue: they openly admit to a lack of one overall solution and consider it a strength of the movement. Instead of creating a list of plans for the movement as a whole, the members gather every night in a meeting called “General Assembly” to voice all of their individual concerns. OWS says the absence of a clear central message is what sets the movement apart from other protests, but if the members of the group have no manifesto to follow, they can never truly effect positive change in the political and financial worlds.

Without the support of a definitive majority of the citizenship, OWS will never have the cohesiveness of the Arab Spring. Only 54 percent of Americans view the OWS movement in a favorable light, according to a poll published Oct. 13 by Time Magazine. Support from 54 percent of the citizenship may be enough to win an election, but OWS is not attempting to run for office; it seeks to change the status quo. More than a slight majority is necessary to enact real, permanent and sweeping reform in any society.

Looking at the actions of members of OWS and its sub-groups, it’s no wonder that the movement doesn’t have the full support of the country. Members run amok on city streets, causing traffic jams and disrespecting police. Protesters from Occupy DC assembled Oct. 22 at the intersection of 15^th and K Streets, blocking all traffic for 20 minutes. Police were present, but their main duty was to protect the protesters and redirect traffic. Still, the members of Occupy DC openly harassed members of law enforcement stationed to protect them. One protester stepped up to a DCPD officer and said, “I pay your salary, pig. I own you.” The blatant disregard for authority found in OWS and its subsidiaries doesn’t lend legitimacy to the movement.

Not every protester at OWS acts with such disrespect, however. There are plenty of hard-working and respectful people at these demonstrations. But their voices can’t be heard over the 20-somethings who cover their faces with bandanas while shouting at police officers.

At the root of it all, the public should question the point of these protests. OWS is completely mishandling an opportunity to create long-lasting change. Yes, the economy is bad, and there’s a growing disparity between the rich and the poor. But movements like OWS aren’t suggesting solutions. Without a clear, central message, OWS will always be perceived as a protest for the sake of protest.