I’ve already mentioned my initial thoughts on the Occupy Wall Street movement (#OWS). Here’s some snippets from a couple of others with some interesting insights. First, historian William Hogeland writes at his blog Hysteriography. He notes how the #OWS movement is a deeply American movement. It has roots in the American revolutionary period as much as any Tea Party. He also reminds us that the Revolution wasn’t simply Americans vs. the tyrannical English. It was just as much about pure economic equality and fairness. It was also about elitist rich Americans vs. populist American farmers and workers oppressed by taxes, foreclosures, and debts.
… I write about the deep, founding roots of rowdy, American populist protest and insurrection, often visionary and even utopian, yet informed and practical too, specifically over money, credit, and the purpose and nature of public and private finance. …most people still don’t connect the American founding period with a rugged drive on the part of ordinary people for equal access to the tools of economic development and against the hegemony of the high-finance, inside-government elites who signed the Declaration and framed the Constitution and made us a nation.
Sometimes people even ascribe democratic ideas to the famous upscale American Revolutionaries, who to a man actually hated democracy and popular finance. Paine, the exception, was ultimately rebuked and scorned by all of the others. [UPDATE: Anyway, Paine wasn’t one of them; I threw him in defensively because consensus-history types like to “include him in” on the basis of “Common Sense,” while including his social/economic radicalism out.]
The difficulty in dealing with our founding battle for democratic economics arises in part because the movement was not against England but against the very American banking and trading elites who dominated the resistance to England. That complicates our founding myth, possibly unpleasantly. Also, it was a generally losing battle. With ratification of the Constitution, Hamiltonian finance triumphed, and people looking to Jefferson and Madison for finance and economic alternatives to Hamilton are barking up the wrong tree, since what those men knew, or even really cared, about finance could be written on a dime. (Anyway, in pushing for creating a nation, Madison supported Hamiltonian finance down the line. Their differences came later.) When Occupy Wall Street protesters say “It’s We the People!” they’re actually referring to a preamble, intending no hint of economic democracy, to a document that was framed specifically to push down democratic finance and concentrate American wealth for national purposes. Not very edifying, but there it is.
…Amid horrible depressions and foreclosure crises, from the 1750′s through the 1790′s, ordinary people closed debt courts, rescued debt prisoners, waylaid process servers, boycotted foreclosure actions, etc. (More on that here and here.) They were legally barred from voting and holding office, since they didn’t have enough property, so they used their power of intimidation to pressure their legislatures for debt relief and popular monetary policies. Their few leaders in legit politics included the visionary preacher Herman Husband, the weaver William Findley, and the farmer Robert Whitehill.
They had high hopes for American independence. In the 1770′s, their “out-of-doors” collaboration with the famous elites was critical to enabling the Declaration of Independence — even though none of their names appears there (well, Benjamin Rush’s does, but by then he’d become unradicalized). Their democratic, egalitarian hopes dashed, in the 1780′s, in western Massachusetts, they marched on the state’s armory in Springfield to reverse regressive finance policies that had again plunged ordinary people into debt peonage and foreclosure while bailing out rich creditors (elites called that populist action, reductively, Shays’s Rebellion). In the 1790′s, with the Constitution in force, and Hamilton’s economics the law of a powerful new nation (partly in direct reaction to the Shays action), populists took over the militia and debt-court system throughout western Pennsylvania and western counties of neighboring states, flew their own flag, and tried to secede from the United States and form an economically egalitarian country. Hamilton dubbed that action, again in a successful effort to reduce it, the Whiskey Rebellion, and he and President Washington responded, naturally enough, by occupying western Pennsylvania with federal troops.
It is my possibly vain hope that reading up on such historical matters might inspire efforts like Occupy Wall Street to greater cogency and a deeper, more solid foundation in longstanding (if embattled and problematic) American values than they now seem to possess. You don’t have to look as late as the 19th-century Populists and the 1930′s labor movement, for example, to find an American left deeply immersed in both economic issues and an ambitious vision of a better country. Those things were present at the creation.
Hogeland also recommends an “Occupy Wall Street” Reading List.
Next up is John Quiggin at Crooked Timber. He first observes that much of the eventual outcome of the #OWS movement depends on the “19%” – the folks that are in the top quintile, the top 20%, but aren’t part of the top 1%. As we know powerfully from a graph I posted a few days ago:
First, economix at the New York Times reported on the basic income distribution data recently:
The graph below shows how much income is earned by a household at any given percentile in the income distribution, based on these new numbers for 2011:Tax Policy Center
Incomes grow much, much faster at the top end of the income distribution than in the middle or at the bottom end. That is, the disparity in income between one percentile and a consecutive percentile is bigger among the very rich.
The top quintile, the top 20% may be rich compared to the rest, but not very much. It’s really the top 1% and the top 0.1% where the income scale is truly distorted and outrageous. Quiggin makes the point that the 19% is politically influential and powerful. Perhaps not as powerful as the 1%, but clearly politically influential. To keep the redistribution of income to the top game going, the top 1% has to keep the 19% on their side. Without them, there’s clearly no legitimacy. [bold emphases mine]
The top quintile as a whole commands the great majority of US income, and virtually all financial wealth – few households outside this group own much beyond their homes and perhaps some money in a pension fund….
The 19 per cent also have a disproportionate political weight, since they are much more likely than Americans in general to register, vote and engage in political activity. So, it makes a big difference whether, as as implied by ‘We are the 99 per cent’ their interests are aligned with the mass of the population or with the top 1 per cent…
The top quintile as a whole has done very well over the past few decades, and (despite some silly claims to the contrary), high-income earners have mostly voted Republican, in line with their economic interests. Certainly there are plenty who don’t vote their interests, but that is also true of many people in the top 1 per cent, not to mention bona fide billionaires like Buffett and Soros. [but]… a closer look at income growth figures suggests that, while the 19 per cent have enjoyed rising incomes, they’ve only barely maintained their share of national income. The redistribution of the past three decades has gone from the bottom 80 per cent to the top 1 per cent.
That suggests the possibility of a policy response in which the main redistributive thrust would be to reverse this process. This would almost certainly involve higher tax payments, but this would be offset by the restoration of public services, which are in economic terms a ‘superior good’, valued more as income rises. The top 1 per cent can buy their own services, and are largely unaffected by public sector cutbacks, but that’s not true of the 19 per cent.
Another important factor is the growth of economic insecurity. The myth of the US as a land of opportunity for upward mobility has been replaced by Barbara Ehrenreich’s Fear of Falling (another good source on this is High Wire by Peter Gosselin). Even if people in the top 19 per cent are doing well, they are less secure than at any time since the 1930s, and their children face even more uncertain prospects.
Finally, there is the alliance of the 1 per cent with the forces of rightwing cultural tribalism. The 1 per cent can only rule by persuading lots of people to vote against their interests, and that requires a reactionary and anti-intellectual agenda on social, cultural and scientific issues. As a result, educated voters have increasingly turned against the Republican Party.
I don’t want to make too much of this last point. As Allan Grayson said during his memorable takedown of PJ O’Rourke recently, the 1 per cent own the Republican Party outright, but they also own much of the Democratic Party, and can rule satisfactorily through either. Also, having a college degree isn’t the same as being educated – Tea Party supporters are more likely than the average American to have a degree, and college-graduate Republicans are even more prone to various delusional beliefs on issues such as climate change.
Nevertheless, taking account of all the factors listed above, even the most comfortably affluent members of the professional class, looking at the alliance of plutocrats and theocrats arrayed to defend Wall Street could reasonably conclude that it was in their own interests to support the 99 per cent and not the 1 per cent.
We are therefore (surprisingly to me) suddenly back in a situation where a progressive movement can reasonably claim to act in the interests of a group that is:..
(a) the overwhelming majority of the population
(b) responsible for nearly all the productive activity (as against the 1 per cent’s incomes drawn from a parasitic financial sector)
(c) economically desperate or at risk of becoming so.
Can all of this be sustained? I don’t know, any more than anyone else. But #OWS has already achieved things that most people would have regarded as impossible a month ago, and for the moment at least, the momentum is still growing.
The #OWS movement appears to be spreading and growing in a way the Tea Party never did. It’s clearly, as Hogeland points out, deep in the tradition of American politics. And as Quiggin points out, the 19%, the top quintile folks have had income gains in recent years but they’ve also had a dramatic increase in economic insecurity, diminished prospects for their children, and a reduction in the public services they value such as top-notch public universities and infrastructure. It’s interesting times, especially since no presidential candidate from either party appears to align with the interests of the #OWS movement.
4 thoughts on “Some Other Interesting Perspectives on OccupyWallStreet”
William Hogeland’s articles at New Deal 2.0 and Naked Capitalism have provided delightful insights into the pre- and post-Revolutionary War eras in America; and I suspect that many citizens (including myself) today are somewhat confused by arguments which fomented the beginnings of the current Tea Party movement. I found that Terry Bouton’s book ‘Taming Democracy’ very helpful in putting the events occurring in Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, and a few other states prior to and following the Revolutionary War into perspective. The formation of the Constitution in 1790 occurred at a point in time about 7 years or so after the war concluded; a time when the elites were becoming alarmed with regard to the activities of the proletariat (non-elite 99%). Note, that the Declaration of Independence was rarely mentioned at the time the Constitution was being formulated and that that document is not mentioned in the Constitution:
Armitage, David. The Declaration Of Independence: A Global History, 92. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0-674-02282-9.
Also, in the above-mentioned wikipedia article, we find the statement: “In none of these documents”, wrote Pauline Maier, “is there any evidence whatsoever that the Declaration of Independence lived in men’s minds as a classic statement of American political principles.”
With this in mind, and the claim that Alexander Hamilton (Jamaican bastard) learned all of the knowledge about financial matters which were incorporated into the Federalist Papers from Robert Morris (the extraordinarily powerful Philadelphia wheeler-dealer) it is unsurprising that the Constitution turned out to be a wonderful piece of propaganda for the financial elites of the new American states.
Correction: Alexander Hamilton, according to:
‘Hamilton was born out of wedlock to Rachel Faucette Lavien, of partial French Huguenot descent, and James A. Hamilton, the fourth son of Scottish laird Alexander Hamilton of Grange, Ayrshire. It is not certain whether the year of Hamilton’s birth was 1757 or 1755; most historical evidence after Hamilton’s arrival in New England supports the idea that he was born in 1757, and as such, many historians had accepted this birth date. Hamilton’s early life in the Caribbean was recorded in documents first published in Danish in 1930; this evidence has caused recent historians to opt for a birth year of 1755. Hamilton listed his birth year as 1757 when he first arrived in the Thirteen Colonies. He celebrated his birthday on January 11. In later life, he tended to give his age only in round figures.’
As regards Hamilton’s attitude toward the Revolutionary War, he was apparently/obviously a Loyalist sympathiser:
‘Although Hamilton was a supporter of the Revolutionary cause at this prewar stage, he did not approve of mob reprisals against Loyalists. On May 10, 1775, Hamilton saved his college president Myles Cooper, a Loyalist, from an angry mob, by speaking to the crowd long enough for Cooper to escape the danger.’
Here is another perspective on OWS… it has no agenda or plans for meaningful positive action.
That is why it will just fade away.
Pingback: Honors Colloquy Links | EconProph
Comments are closed.