Derek Thompson, senior editor of The Atlantic,
thinks President Obama’s SOTU address has a lot in common with
the grievances of Occupy Wall Street, for better or for worse:
A 7,000 word speech is bigger than a placard. But Obama’s
address shared the same virtues and shortfalls of the populist
movement. Like OWS, the president offered a diagnosis of the middle
class crisis that was informed, passionate, and often insightful.
Also like OWS, his solutions seemed small, misguided, or confused
when matched against the scale of the crisis.
Now I don’t entirely agree with Thompson. I think neither Obama
or OWS are particularly informed, their passions are misplaced and
I don’t put much stock into their insight. However, some of the
language emanating from OWS (i.e. the 99% vs. 1%) has made its way
into our lexicon across the political spectrum and has given
President Obama the raison d’ être for his
re-election campaign in the absence of being able to make the case
for his accomplishments in office or lack thereof. Which brings me
to the two most interesting sentences in Thompson’s piece:
How do you fix a problem like the greater recession and income
inequality? The honest, realistic answer is that solving such a
problem is likely beyond the reach of a president or Congress.
Bingo!!!
In other words, there’s really not much of anything either
President Obama or Congress can do on those questions or on most
matters. But it’s easier for government to give the appearance of
doing something rather than doing nothing. How else does one
explain the President proclaiming
the establishment of a Trade Enforcement Unit investigating
unfair trading practices in China. Aside from the fact that we’re
already well aware of China’s unfair trading practices, how exactly
is this entity going to “enforce” anything against China?
After all, we also know that teenaged girls are not interested
in teenaged boys with pimples and halitosis. Even if President
Obama were to establish a Pimples & Halitosis Enforcement Unit
(PHEU) to combat these afflictions, it is not going to change this
state of affairs never mind human nature. The best
adolescent males can do under the circumstances is invest in
Proactiv & Listerine (with their own money if it all possible)
and pray that puberty will run its course through the rough
patches.
At least where the economy is concerned, the best the federal
government can do is set optimal monetary, taxation and regulatory
conditions under which businesses can be established and have an
opportunity to grow. Unless those businesses are engaging in
deliberately dishonest practices with consumers, impeding consumer
access to the market, are impeding competition or
if matters arise concerning interstate commerce, the federal
government should have as little involvement as possible.
While the federal government can play a role in ensuring
equality of opportunity, it nor any other entity can guarantee
equality of outcome. There will always be variances in success,
monetary or otherwise.
The world does not owe you a living. Poverty will always be
amongst us. But poverty can be minimized by the individual through
diligent effort, education and family (or other source of personal
support.) The individual is in a far better position to improve his
or her own lot in life through his or her own wit and
willingness to learn than through the wishful thinking of
President Obama, much less the empty slogans offered by OWS.
Oldefarte| 1.25.12 @ 9:46PM
BOTH would be well advised to learn the meaning of the 1960's-ish bumper-sticker saying of I FIGHT POVERTY......I WORK!!!! [oh wait, it's hard to work because there are no jobs, and there are no jobs because of Obama's/Democrats' governmental fiscal policies and excessive regulations, I forgot; oh well the OWS crowd wouldn't work even if there were jobs available since they are lazy, stupid bums]!!!!
Bob K.| 1.26.12 @ 3:06AM
Thompson was wrong in this respect. Populism is a force, not a movement. It is "folkish" and nationalistic in it's roots and it is suspicious of peoples who are different.
The OWS movement was not populist driven. It was politically driven and the grievances that made it possible were caused by politics.
martin j smith| 1.26.12 @ 11:02AM
Obama loves WS--its the gift that keeps on giving . This entire OW think is a fraud--Its about biting the hand the feeds and keeps on feeding.