As the sun seemingly sets on the first phase of the Occupy Wall Street moment – specifically, on the physical occupations themselves – many are questioning what, if anything, was accomplished and, what, if anything, happens next. But there may be a moment, here, to assess how we chose to view that first phase as it was happening, and what it tells us about the current American reality.
One of the persistent (though not necessarily widespread) opinions of OWS was that it consisted of lazy, spoiled young people who feel entitled to a quick, easy road to success. Ironically, this view is espoused often by members of the generation that actually raised these young people, promising them, at base, a quick, easy road to success. And this is where I think that things get more complicated than we have tended to make them. I do not view the people engaged in OWS with any of the pejoratives mentioned. A promise has been made. That promise, that in this nation, hard work and education necessarily breed success, is simply and profoundly false. Many of us knew this previously, of course, for example some of us that are members of or have worked with low-income communities. Now, however, those limitations have been laid out for all of us to see – even if we may still choose not to do so. Much of OWS, then, is a belated sense of the injustice of the system, propelled by the natural shock of a shattered belief system. We can at least credit them with looking truth in the face and accepting it, something which many of their critics are unwilling or unable to do. This, of course, makes a certain degree of sense. Though false, this promise is deep-seated and perpetuated almost universally across the social spectrum.
In the past, the perpetuation of this false promise could be argued to, at the very least, protect the existing power structure. If we all believe that everyone has a fair shot, that we can all be successful with a little elbow grease, and that consumerism will, in the end, lead to happiness, then those at the highest tier of the social order can maintain and prosper unperturbed. Recent events, however, have exposed a fatal flaw in this mentality: its utter lack of longevity. Specifically, you cannot maintain the illusion of social mobility while at the same time eviscerating the middle class. And you can’t achieve and maintain maximum amounts of immediate profits without eviscerating the middle class – jobs must be shed to protect bottom lines and executive bonuses. Moreover, you cannot maintain an industry over the long-term while at the same time all but eliminating a vital, creative workforce. That would seem like common-sense: when all you have left is people concerned about making money and none of the people driven and qualified to make anything else, then you no longer have anything to offer. And, of course, you cannot do any of this and maintain a healthy society and competitive economy.
At this point, it may seem like I am being overly-harsh on the business community. A few clarifications: one, not all business is created equal. This has been one of the best-executed distortions by the corporate world: that to challenge any for-profit enterprise is to challenge every for profit enterprise, period. So first, let us at least come to a common understanding: most businesses exist to earn profit. I know that some will use that statement as a criticism, while others will use it as an absolution. I am not assigning any editorial value. The key is that some businesses earn their profits in ways that add value to our society (i.e.: through employment, ingenuity, solving problems) while others do not (i.e.: they do not employ or do not employ in the US, they exploit resources, they harm the environment, they create rather than solve problems). Ironically, those most concerned with immediate financial gain are both more likely to fall into the latter category and, by virtue of that financial success, receive favorable policy treatment.
A second clarification: in the interest of the big picture, I am attempting to focus on what I see as a largely neglected piece of the national conversation. Much has been discussed of American values and habits on the low- and middle-income levels. Specifically, the tendency of people towards consumerism, debt, and the urge to make a quick buck (even though, in regards to this last point, Americans work longer, more, and more productively than almost any other industrialized nation). So yes, consumerism (and the debt it accrues) is a societal problem. But the emphasis is on societal, as in, across society. For one thing, as I hope that I have illuminated, much of our corporate and (I’ll go this far here) business culture in general is extremely short-sighted in terms of hiring and ingenuity. Admittedly, for small and mid-sized businesses this is often simply an existential reality – they need to be short-sighted in order to survive. For larger corporations it is harder to make that claim, at least when they are consistently increasing executive salaries.
Similarly, our politicians are short-sighted in catering to these interests. It is virtually impossible to run a successful political campaign, at least beyond the local level, without significant corporate backing. This may seem to cater towards the existential reality argument, but whereas businesses have the option of serving the common good, politicians have a mandate. In any case, this is why President Obama is not the anti-business Socialist that many conservatives pretend he is and that many liberals thought he would be. In fact, he has reduced and eliminated more business regulations than President George W. Bush. This is not a defense of Obama (quite the contrary), but merely helps to illustrate my point that there is about a snowball’s chance in Hell of a truly anti-business candidate being elected president. The short-sighted piece, of course, is evident in the trouble that Obama faces not for being too liberal, but for failing to be the president that he promised to be.
Finally, there is the tricky matter of our economy itself, which, in our short-sightedness, we have ingeniously constructed to run on our own short-sighted nature. We condemn those greedy fools that bought houses that they couldn’t afford, yet lament the continuously weak housing market. We wag our finger at all that accumulated debt, yet bend over backwards to incentivize Americans to spend more and (yes, this has actually been said explicitly by economists) stop saving. In the meantime, we have a contingent of people urging the US Government to start saving and eliminate deficits at a time when, economically, it makes most sense to spend money to get people back to work and get the economy moving again. But then, we’re told that this would be short-sighted.
What we need, then, is to re-orient ourselves towards the true American promise. Rather than cling to myths about what our country is, why not work to make it what we want? If we say that all people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, why not re-orient ourselves towards addressing these rights? Why not first ask ourselves what these things mean – What does a full right to life entail? What does genuine liberty look like? What will make us happy? – and how we can ensure the actualization of each? Instead of believing in false promises, we should do the hard work of fulfilling those promises that ought to be true.
No comments:
Post a Comment