To the Occupy movement–what do you want?
Where is the list of demands?
The Occupy Wall Street movement is now one month old. The protests have spilled over from their initial Wall Street site to Washington, D.C., Miami, and, according to the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) website, into approximately 1,500 cities around the globe.
They’ve even come here to Greensboro, N.C., a day before President Barack Obama is scheduled to visit the state, marching outside a Bank of America building against economic inequality and financial fraud. Some of the signs, screened through the headlines, are poignant, thoughtful, and also humorous. And the outrage of those who are angry about our economic situation is an energy that needs to be harnessed.
If you aren’t angry at our nation’s banks, all you have to do is read Ron Susskind’s latest book, “Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President,” (Harper, 2011), which details the ways that Larry Summers and Tim Geitner essentially defied President Obama and did bank bailouts their way.
As I read it, I wanted to shake the smug White men for their clear disrespect of our nation’s elected president, but in truth, I also wanted to shake the president for not calling these men on their nonsense. Here’s the bottom line, if it needs to be regurgitated—banks got bailed out, we got ripped off. Banks were given money to lend and they chose not to lend it.
Banks created risky financial instruments–derivatives–and when they couldn’t perform, whined and leaned on an excuse that they were “too big to fail.” Now they are even bigger, and our government is all the more invested in their nonsense. And the billions that went to bailing banks out, may have created jobs.
No wonder they are mad, these Occupy Wall Street folks. Heck, I’m mad with them and for them. But mad as I am, as I look at their movement, I see a sense of déjà vu.
Young folks, mostly White folks, taking it to the street. Protesting, acting out their frustration.
And to what end? OWS does not look like America, but there are reasons for that. There are plenty of unemployed young African Americans and Latinos, but our law enforcement experiences are different from those of Whites. While a protest arrest may be seen as a youthful indiscretion for a young White man, it is an employment-ender for a young Black man.
As the New York police are arresting right and left, I can imagine a brother or a sister deciding that they might just stay home and support OWS in spirit.
Still, I could see getting out of the office and into the street, but to what end? What in the world do these folks want? They are protesting because of their pain, but they have to turn pain and protest into power. In other words, where is the list of demands, the set of policy changes the OWS folk want? Their momentum is exciting, and the wide swath of their movement is amazing.
The attempt to have a flat hierarchy is refreshing in an era where everyone is out to get their 15 minutes of fame.
At the same time, those of us who are seasoned activists wonder, to what end? What do you want, y’all? Please make it plain.
Protesting income inequality won’t make the playing field level. Protesting greed won’t yield many ends, when the incentives for greed are hard-wired into our system. What are bankers to do? Voluntarily give up multimillion dollar bonuses in the face of unexpected anger. Even as our friends at OWS protest, Bank of America has imposed a fee on those who use debit cards.
Banking on the fact that folks have so many relationships hard-wired into their banking lives, including things like online payments, the BofA folks are betting that folks won’t mind paying $60 more a year to maintain their relationships. This is pure abuse of monopoly power, but it is the same abuse that our government has experienced at the hands of the banks.
I am encouraging those on OWS to do two things. First, they must diversify. They must reach out to Black, Latino, and marginalized communities so that this protest is not a narrow White occasion. And, in reaching out to these folks, they must clearly understand the greater risks involved when people of color take it to the streets. They need to be prepared to protect those who are racially targeted by people who sometimes masquerade as law enforcement officers.
More importantly, the OWS team needs to offer up some clear demands. Not only are we mad at Wall Street and exploitative bankers, but also we want legislation that manages them. The terms might include issues of compensation, of tax consequences for rapid short term-trading, of pension abuse, of massive layoffs. They need to spell it out so that the outrage that has spilled into the streets now spills back upon our legislators.
We should occupy Wall Street, but to what end. Other than agitation, what does OWS want?
Julianne Malveaux is president of Bennett College for Women in Greensboro, N.C.
DISCLAIMER: The beliefs and viewpoints expressed in opinion pieces, letters to the editor, by columnists and/or contributing writers are not necessarily those of OurWeekly.
The Senate’s Gang of Eight have put together an 844-page monstrosity known as the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act, legislation that President Barack Obama says he “basically approves” of.
The crafters of this essentially unreadable bill were senators Dick Durbin (Illinois), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Michael Bennett (D-Colo.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.).
The right wing seems determined to associate President Barack Obama with any government program that helps people on the bottom. Thus the term Obamacare used to attack the health care program that President Obama fashioned and worked with Congress to approve. While Obamacare is not perfect, it brings more people into the healthcare system, and further solidifies the safety net that many have attempted to fray.
I never considered the late Rodney King anything of a philosopher, but as one observes Washington shenanigans, especially around fiscal matters, it seems that Brother King had a point. Can we all just, maybe, get along?
Shelby County, Ala., is suing the Justice Department because they think that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (and its reauthorization in 1982 and 2006) is unfair.
I was among the 33.5 million people who sat riveted to their televisions, parsing every second of the State of the Union address. I was stunned to learn, through a Washington Post article by Lisa De Moraes, that viewership was less substantial for this address than last year’s 38 million, and even lower than the 48 million that watched in 2010. Are people less interested in what our president has to say? Or is there something else going on?
In any case, from my perspective this was an important and significant State of the Union address.
