The T&G Occupies Elizabeth Warren

The editorial writer of the Worcester Telegram and Gazette has recently been taking Elizabeth Warren and the Occupy Movement to task for not understanding or agreeing with capitalism and its dictates.

Yet, both Massachusetts senatorial candidate Warren and the Occupy Movement want to amend American style capitalism to make the system work more for the proverbial “little guy”; people without power, without great educations, without tremendous wealth, and people who are not part of the ruling political class: those who do not have either the money nor time to acquire the wealth necessary to acquire power to advance their own interests under the American political system.

Concerning candidate Warren, the T&G editorial says that Warren’s ideas are not her invention but that of 18^th century Enlightenment writer Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau stated that the establishment of private property, and its protection by a government’s law and order, would lead to a system where those without private property would end up working to enrich those with it. Who would get to use the power of the government to protect their interests would become the focal point of contention. Whose view of “order” is being protected by law, is the issue.

Capitalism does not define the proper balance of power and rights between workers and laborers on the one hand, and those with private property and capital on the other. That choice is up for grabs. There is no uniform, monolithic definition of capitalism to be defended.

What Elizabeth Warren and the Occupy Movement believe is that those whose primary motive is the protection of their private property have grabbed too much.

Some facts stated in the editorial and also by former T&G editor, Robert Nemeth, are just plain factually wrong. Harvard University, (where Elizabeth Warren is a law professor specializing in finance, business matters and bankruptcy), did not keep the Harvard Occupy Movement out of Harvard Yard. The university allowed the protestors to set-up their tents on campus. Further, unlike what the editorial on Elizabeth Warren claims, we do not have progressive tax rates in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The rich are not taxed at a higher percentage of their higher income, like the federal government does. From the wealthy to the working class, all are taxed at the same 5.3% irrespective of whether they are millionaires or make $20,000 per year. Further, Rousseau did not argue explicitly for monarchy, kings or queens per se. He argues that any type of government could be utilized to protect average people from folks who own private property and pass laws to protect themselves, their wealth and privileges. The type of government that existed then was monarchy. Thank goodness it is not the type that exists today. Unlike what the editorial stated: Rousseau obviously did not argue for monarchy.

The Editorial page also goes on to say the Occupy protestors in Worcester chant for civil war. Although I have certainly not been to all the General Assembly meetings and protests at Worcester Common, at the ones I’ve attended I have never heard anyone chant for civil war but only for a fairer deal for the 99% of people without wealth and power. The only currents that seem to run through the agenda of the Occupy movement is a more equal allocation of wealth and political power between the 1% moneyed class and the 99% who have neither the money nor political power to shape our laws.

These are some of the philosophical reasons many in the Occupy Movement are unafraid to violate or break laws concerning when, where and most importantly how they can non-violently demonstrate their displeasure with the current inequality of the American political and economic system. Many in the Occupy movement believe laws are set up by the powerful to further protect their interests. They think the game is rigged and the laws, and law and order itself, has been hijacked away from representing equality and fairness.

At least one federal judge in Boston temporarily agreed that setting up tents to build a more egalitarian subgroup of society which practices direct democracy, is itself a political statement worthy of protecting as a symbol of free expression and political challenge under the first amendment guarantees of free speech. Hence the rule of law is more fluid then the editorial page writers at the Telegram and Gazette declare. The motivations and goals of candidate Warren and Occupy are more than the editorial page admits.

Mr. Nemeth also makes the same erroneous argument as the Tea Party – that the left wing is opting for a shift to socialism. The last time I checked the definition of socialism wherein the government owns the means of production. The Democratic Party, when given the chance during the financial crisis, did not nationalize the banks or even pass laws allowing for people to choose a government provided option for health care. Instead, the democratic-led government lent money to private banks and bought shares alongside private investors in U.S. companies, selling those shares and receiving payment back at terms mostly favorable to US taxpayers, all the while saving the private companies and the financial system from bankruptcy and concurrently fending off massive job loss, by supporting private industry.

This is Randy Feldman on WCRN’s Midday Report.