‘Occupy’ is a lazy excuse for bigger government
The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement seems to be sweeping across the nation. From coast to coast citizens are rallying to demonstrate their discontent with the current policies of the U.S. government. The movement has been supported by individuals of varying political theories and philosophies. With the continued strengthening and growth of this movement, the American people need to step back and view these protests for what they really are.
To be successful in life, one must master the art of designing good goals. This goals need to be specific to address clearly identified problems or concerns. They must be achievable, realistic, and time based. This is where OWS has truly failed. They appeal to various political groups and a large portion of the population, but haven’t any real goals.
Let’s look at goals from a business perspective. If a subordinate approaches his boss to complain about a problem without any ideas for solutions, it does not make him a model employee. It only makes him a whiner. There is really no purpose behind complaining if you do not have an idea to correct the problem.
To anyone wanting to protest, I would suggest that the protest begin with goals so that the protest has a clearly defined purpose and end goal. I would also suggest that these protests are specific in nature, which will usually result in a smaller group of protestors, with a unified voice. You should always know and understand the political goals and philosophies of those that you protest with, which is not the case for OWS. It does not support a stronger America, but rather those who oppose the whole nation.
To be most effective in any protest, citizens should understand how the political system works and they should also consider if government should be involved in addressing the specific issue that they are protesting. It is amazing how many forget that citizens can be an incredible force for good without the need to ever get government involved.
American philanthropists have always aided their fellow citizens throughout the history of the U.S. There are more ways to get support for your cause than making our government (and its inefficiency) get involved. Wealthy Americans have established great organizations to aid the less fortunate, and are far better organized and managed than bureaucracy. A great example is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
To quote Mahatma Gandhi, “[B]e the change you want to see in the world.” The process is simple: identify the issues you wish to address; gain knowledge in the influencing factors that relate to the problem; design clear goals and objectives which best support the changes you wish to see; look for solutions outside the state; finally take action.
In the end, the lack of any clearly defined or unifying goals of OWS will ultimately be its downfall. This movement is composed of so many different political parties, theories, and philosophies that it will never be an effective means for change. Ultimately, the movement will become a giant monster that protests everything, including itself, with no goals or ending points and no capacity to effect change.
I disagree. According to OWS themselves, their goals are fairly defined.
1. Close the income gap. The richest 400 Americans own more wealth than the bottom 50% (150,000,000 people)combined. That is absurd. Not only have we allowed the average CEO pay to go from 25x the average worker (1971) to 263x the average worker (2009), but we have given them tax breaks assuming that they would in turn create jobs. In response, we have gotten the slowest decade of job growth (even before the 2007 financial collapse) in almost a century. Though in the last 40 years our national productivity has continually increased, average worker pay has gone down (when adjusted for inflation.) Both big-business profits and CEO bonuses have skyrocketed, while average worker pay has gone down. That is absolutely ridiculous. We are putting in more hours doing more work, and getting paid less.
2. Bank reform. Most OWS protestors aren’t against capitalism as they are demonized to be; they are simply against the crony form that has taken hold in America. In the last thirty-five years, the taxpayers have had to bail out big banks THREE TIMES. The fact that the GOP is blocking any form of financial reform and is refusing to present any significant legislation of their own regarding this issue is astounding; both sides of the aisle should be upset.
3. Reduce the influence of money in politics. The Koch brothers, the pharmaceutical industry, the insurance industry, Wall Street; all of these and more are guilty of giving ridiculous amounts of money to politicians to get them to vote the way they want. Of course, that’s an oversimplification of a fairly broad problem, but I’m not writing a paper here.
Regardless of your or my opinion on the protests, saying that they don’t have unified goals is preposterous. Even Fox News, certainly one of the more conservative news sources out there, agrees with me. In the very first sentence of this article it states, “Critics of the growing Occupy Wall Street movement complain that the protesters don’t have a policy agenda and, therefore, don’t stand for anything. They’re wrong.”
(http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/10/14/understanding-occupy-wall-street/?intcmp=trending#ixzz1avESF8oi)
Whether you agree with the movement or not is another story, but saying that they don’t stand for anything is simply false.
And, another huge issue in your argument, you claim multiple times that the government is either inefficient or is simply ill-equipped to handle such issues. Why? Making such bold claims without pointing to a single source is quite interesting. I’ll argue the other way simply for the sake of the argument. Data from both the CBO and the CMS shows that Medicare is run far more efficiently and cheaply than private insurance counterparts. Also, Medicare beneficiaries are overwhelmingly happier with their coverage than those with private insurance. Although I wouldn’t hesistate to argue that certain reforms need to be made to Medicare, one thing is clear; Medicare runs far more efficiently and has broader coverage than it’s private insurance counterparts. While of course you could make the argument that “of course the CMS people are saying that to save their jobs,” the CBO has virtually no connection to Medicare. They won’t get a cut in their paycheck, and they certainly won’t lose their jobs. That is simply the data they found.
That’s only one example. I’m not going to go for the broader argument that ALL government is efficient, because I’d rather not write a novel here. I am simply pointing out that, in fact, government CAN be quite efficient. Simply stating in your articles that it is “inefficient” is a massive claim which is less than convincing without any sort of data to back such it. Though it is a popular paradigm in America, especially in this part of the country, there simply isn’t much reliable data to go on.
Dear Scott,
I think we miss understand the purpose of the American Government and the foundations on which it was built. The government is meant to provide “negative” rights to the American population. For example, the right to life, liberty, and to presuit happiness. This might be better stated as simply the right to be left alone.
The problem we are currently facing is now we are demanding “positive” rights out of the government. For example, affordable healthcare and other goods and services that are now thought to be the entitlements of citizens. This unfortunately was never intended by the original concept of our government.
It was called the “American Dream” for a reason. It was never the “American Guarentee.” If you want to live a comfortable life, you have to work for it. There are several ways included acquiring education and working challenging jobs that most would not take to elevate yourself up the social ladder. Why does this modern culture expect everything to be handed to them? Not too long ago we where fighting wars against Communism. If you need proof that this system of government doesn’t work, there is lots of examples. What is the insentive to work hard when everyone is entitled to the same stuff?
And just because a government could possible run things effectively and efficently does not mean that it has the right to. Government should only be as large as required to ensure the ‘negative’ rights of its citizens. Why are we requiring our government to get involved in areas where number 1 it has no authority to opperation and number 2 could be handle better on a local level?