Throughout this year, there have been two, massive, grassroots movements comprised of people who have been much dissatisfied with their government and who wanted to show their displeasure and inspire change through awareness. This year has, in my opinion, been the year of profound discontent with government to such a degree that citizens have exerted pressure on politicians to make substantial changes. The coming of age of social networks, including Facebook and Twitter, have played a big part in these monumental efforts.
What are the political dynamics that finally have gotten citizens so fed up that they joined forces with like-minded people to spend time and often money, to organize and to demand government to make changes? Well, to start out, to enter political office, elected public servants must run campaigns and these campaigns cost $$$. Many $$$! And who have the resources to fund political campaigns? It is not the overwhelming majority of middle-class and definitely not low-income citizens. No, those who are able and willing to fund the campaigns and elections of our politicians are millionaires and billionaires. And because our public servants are usually "paid off" by these super-rich, it is to they to whom they feel indebted and are most driven to please, even if pleasing their benefactors' demands go against the grain of the consciences and convicted of our public servants. And to show their gratitude to their benefators, President George W. Bush instituted tax cuts for these super-wealthy, beginning in his first term in 2001. In the current tax code, which I make no claim to understand, the more $$$ one makes, the lower one's taxes in proportion to one's income. Conservatives and liberals differ sharply on how to address the inequities in the current tax code. Conservative deeply desire to preserve the status quo and to limit the role of government in our lives, so they hold fast to the notion that the current tax code must be left alone, that politicians must not meddle with citizens,' including wealthy citizens,' private affairs. Also, conservatives reason that since the very wealthy are usually the job creators, paying higher taxes would leave these job creators with fewer $$$ to create new jobs. To me, this begs the question of our declining economy and high unemployment rate. It is also an argument of the those who lean toward the liberal view, that it is reasonable and moral to require millionaires and billionaires (NOT small business owners) to pay their fair share, that is, a higher proportion of taxes according to their incomes. This would ensure fairer and more equitable economy for middle-class and low-income citizens.
Actually, there has always been an undercurrent of resentment toward millionaires and billionaires, especially those on Wall Street, and of their corporate greed and and their buying of our public servants through huge contribution to politicians' campaigns. Since Wall Street CEO's and other very wealthy corporations and individuals have traditionally been most able to fund poltical campaigns ans elections, and since "money talks," they, not the rest of us, have enjoyed much more influence and power with our public servants. Though I'm sure most politicians start out with the finest of motives, seeking power for the sake of helping and advocating for their citzenry, it is clear that the temptations and trappings of public office tend to make them lose their focus. Once they settle into office and encounter the temptation to cave into the pressures of the greed of their "benefactors," because they want to get re-elected, it becomes easy for our public servants to forget why they entered public office in the first place. So we see so much greedy, corrupt and even criminal behavior on the part of our public servants.
And this is where two mass grassroots movements come in; the only thing they have in common is their profound discontent with our public servants and a deep-seated belief that they hold the solution to the country's problem. The first mass movement, the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party, is a fiscal movement which claims to be founded on the original Boston Tea Party in the late 1770's. Largely conservative in their worldview, the TEA Party claim the American flag and the Constitution as their their symbols. Their philosophy is that the governments is our problem and that they should have only a small role in our lives. And since those who support them and those who speak for them tend to be upper-middle-class or wealthy, their outcry not to be taxed anymore favors the affluent and the wealthy. Some Members of Congress speak for this TEA Party and are known as "the new Republicans." Earlier this year, especially, Members of this movement were real go-getters, applying all their efforts, time, skills and passions into maximizing all forms of media to organize, raise awareness and to put forth their agenda. This TEA Party movement reached deeply into many different parts of the US. Members and supporters of this movement oppose higher taxes on the wealthy, in part because many are among those wealthy, and even if they are not, they have bought into the notion that these job creators will lose $$$ needed to generate jobs, meaning that unemployment will continue or get worse for the rest of us. And they hold to the belief that spending cuts, no matter how deep, hold the key to turning the economy around. Today, Members of the TEA Party seem to have lost much influence but make no mistake, they continue to seek to influence the current, raging national budget debate and their agenda for the upcoming elections in 2012.
Later this year, another movement, called Occupy, sprang up. It claims no official leaders, unlike the TEA Party. The core beliefs and philosophy of the Occupy movement stand in opposition to that of the TEA Party. Members of Occupy and their supporters hold that government should retain a role in our lives, because of their power and resources. This movement began in New York City, as the Occupy Wall Street movement that organized to protest the corporate greed of Wall Street and their corrupting influence on those in elected office. And soon this movement spread in many other cities all over the US as more and more people "caught the vision" and "occupy" soon become the buzzword for many other Occupy movements. And this movement also has reached outside the US and has spread to many other parts of the free world, as people all over the world watched this all unfold from their TV screens and from social networks like Facebook and Twitter. Their photos and videos demonstrate that countless people of a wide variety of different languages, ethnicities, races, and walks of life hold membership in and support the Occupy movement. This is in contrast to the TEA Party, which seems to be far more homogenized. And yes, people of various political persusions also support it, as indicated by the fact that many don't claim to support President Obama. At the heart of their agenda and far-reaching, tireless efforts on the ground and online, is the passion and determination to drive money out of politics. They want to reform the way political campaigns and elections are funded. This way politicians will be free to act out of their convictions, and to speak and vote their consciences without the fear and pressure of not wanting to lose the support of super-wealthy donors. If their elections are taxpayer-funded, they will gain the incentive to work for the overwhelming majority of their citizenry. However, unlike the TEA Party, we keep hearing about the many arrests of Occupy protestors as well as trashing them as "idiots," "thugs," and even "low-lifes," "welfare bums" and "criminals." I find so much of the hostility toward the Occupy movement hard to understand, especially since I don't see that TEA Party Members have been nearly so vilified, trashed and experience so much police brutality. Yet their influence continues, but unlike the TEA Party, I'm not aware that they are trying to get into politics to gain influence.
In this media age of biases, propaganda and politicking, it is hard to know what to believe about anything, especially two massive grassroots movements. I have provided the websites for both of these movements and my hope is that, if you have the time to spare, you will check them out and see for yourself who you should support and stand together with. And looking at all this from the perspective of faith and specifically the Christian faith, we should thoughtfully check out both these movements and decide what values tally with what we believe. As a Christian who holds to Biblical values and who sees much in my Bible which shouts out God's heart for the poor and His sympathy for the working-class and all the vulnerable, it seems to me that the entire diverse structure of the Occupy movement and their passionate advocacy for the vulnerable and the middle-class is closer to Scriptural values than the TEA Party.
If Christ were on Earth at this time, what movement do you think He would identify with?
Occupy Wall Street
http://occupywallst.org/. This is the website for this mass movement.
The TEA Party
http://www.teaparty.org/. This is a social networking site for anyone interested in supporting this movement.
No comments:
Post a Comment