Occupy Wall Street

I part company with those conservative pundits that hold that the Occupy Wall Street protests should not be taken seriously.  This is not to say that I agree with much that I see coming out of the various events, but the fact that they involve a lot of people and are attracting the attention of several important political groups is enough for me to try to figure out what is going on.  Not having visited any of the protests, my information is limited to what the media is reporting.  The following is just my best guess.

Video and still images of the protests emphasize youthful participants with alternative life styles.  Interviews with protesters frequently present inarticulate positions ardently delivered on a wide range of issues - economic and social.  No single theme seems to be presented by the people on the ground and some of the activity looks more like a college social event than a political protest.  An increasing number of liberal political leaders and organizations appear to be attempting to define the protests in ways that support their political positions on a number of issues, while conservative sources strive to minimize the importance of the protests and deny that they have any relevance to the real world.

My suspicion is that the initial gathering in New York was akin to a fairly large flash mob organized through social networking internet sites like Twitter and Face Book.  I doubt that there was a single instigator (if correct, an important point relevant to the future of our society).  The key participants appear to have been primarily underemployed and unemployed young people (with cell phones) whose aspirations exceeded their perceived opportunities.  If my guess is correct, this core of original participants was joined by street people and loons who are almost certainly responsible for the more outrageous happenings associated with the protests.  Eventually, various personalities seeking media coverage began making appearances among the tents and sleeping bags.

As the protesters managed to maintain their presence in the public eye, liberal politicians saw an opportunity to turn the phenomenon to their political advantage by equating them with the Tea Party.  My guess is that the combination of media bias and liberal money will have some success in accomplishing this objective.  One of the themes that I expect to see continue, after sanitation issues and inclement weather end the actual sit-in, is a discussion of what curbs should be placed on free enterprise and capitalism.  This is already an important part of the ongoing presidential campaign. 

The proper role of capitalism in our society is an important subject that must be engaged.  Limits on free enterprise is another.  Proper distribution of wealth is yet another.  Some conservative pundits treat all of these subjects as being beyond the pale for rational people.  They are wrong to do so.  To hold that economic inequality is not a real issue in this country is as much a problem for us as the massive debt that faces us.  Conservatives must engage these issues not only to win elections, but also to help unite this country and strengthen the economy that brings prosperity to the entire nation.  It is not enough to just argue that there are makers and takers.  We have to find more ways to increase the number of makers and decrease the number of takers.  We must face facts.  We are not doing as good job of it as our fathers and grandfathers did.