| badgenome said: That's the problem. Why are the protests directed at Wall Street for taking money and favors rather than at D.C. for giving it to them to begin with? To the extent that they are not merely a demonstration of inchoate rage by the flakier elements in American society, the OWS movement would seem to be a protest against corporatism. But since money always finds power, as long as the government retains the power to pick winners and losers, there will always be corporatism. OWS is generally in favor of a larger and even more powerful government, but they assume that it somehow won't be even more corrupt than the present one because they labor under the misguided belief that you can legislate away corruption. In reality, ethical consumerism and a higher wall of separation between government and business would be much more effective in attaining their purported goals. |
Why not protest anywhere BUT DC? If it gets into congress, due to their inability to act, they will then appoint a supercommittee to resolve the deadlock, which will then fail and things are they way they are now. For there to be any change, there is going to have to be sufficiently large amount of public support for something to get congress to act in a certain way. Protesting Wall Street is a symbolic way to mobilize. Protesting Washington DC won't do much, because congress is currently at 9% favorable rating.
As far as getting "ethical consumerism" whatever that is (does it mean that you wait politely in line as you max out your credit card to buy made in China junk you don't need?) , how do you propose to get that by protesting Washington? In the latest bit of rounds, Liberate Philly, in response to Occupy has decided to stage a BUYcott on Black Friday, where they want people to buy ever more stuff. Remind me again how exactly consumerism becomes ethical through cries to buy more stuff mindlessly?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45416232
