Stephen: Matt, do you think Occupy Wall Street will become relevant again and more importantly for the election?Matt: I hope the message carries forward into the general election, but I also fear that the messengers have discredited themselves. At a certain point with Occupy, the message got overshadowed by the shenanigans, and I think that's really unfortunate, because the initial protests, while lacking specificity, tapped into something among the broader American public that has been lingering under the surface for quite some time. It's not just income inequality, either. It's the broader sense that the game is rigged, and those with disproportionate amounts of wealth and power are finding it easier than ever to write the rules to their advantage. As I said, however, rather than successfully channeling this frustration, as the movement did at its outset, 'Occupy' has become more synonymous with outlandish behavior than it has with any tangible message. It's become a caricature of itself and I think that's a real shame.
Stephen: So your answer was that it would not play a role? (Though you seem to leave open the possibility that the sentiment could). I agree with this. However do you think that they could have created the same spirit and been true it while professing an organized structure?
Matt: The lack of organization was a strength in the beginning that became a drag as the movement went on. At first, it allowed Occupy to be a forum for people to express their frustrations with the "system," however they saw it. Eventually, however, it kept OWS from being able making any coherent demands, and led to the undesirable elements that cling to any protest movement exerting their negative influence. Now, the movement is like the Mongols (for the history major in each of us) - a loose collection of tribes (bear with me here) with no real staying power that is waiting for a Genghis Khan but really just makes people want to build walls to keep them out.
Stephen: That's probably perfectly correct. I'll add that they are probably equally as sanitary, moral, disciplined and selfish. And like the Mongols realized it was easier for them to take what they wanted from those who worked than to create themselves.
Matt: HEYOOO Stephen for the win. Let's be fair though: does Occupy have anything valuable to offer? Can it still gain any traction? Or will OWS forever be Stephen Siena's enemy, like Eric Cartman in that South Park episode with the hippies?
Stephen: I see nothing with any merit coming from them. I hear terrible, short sighted ideas that rail against "greed" by being at least envious if not outright greedy themselves. No I see nothing redeeming in their thoughts.
Matt: I'm not surprised. But what do you say to the general frustration out there? Do you think that our status quo of corporate influence and lobbying by the already rich to make sure nothing hurts their bottom line is okay, or desirable for the future of the country?
Stephen: Nope I'm not a fan either. But the only way to keep them away from getting tight with government is to make sure government does not get to set the winners and losers so basically you need to scale back government power and spending. Until this, the powerful will find ways to get influence. Money is power.
Matt: Sounds like another email debate to me.
As always we encourage our readers to chime in. Pretty much everyone has an opinion on the Occupy movement - our very own Phil Hsu gave his take yesterday. Start up your inner drum circle and share your frustrations, sympathies, inappropriate jokes, etc. in the comments.
No comments:
Post a Comment