This article is part of Occupy the Future, a forum on lessons to be drawn from the Occupy movement.
The collapse of the Soviet bloc in the late 1980s was said at the time to represent the ultimate triumph of market capitalism as a social and economic system. Misguided Marxists seriously underestimated capitalisms capacity (when married to democratic political structures) to reform itself.
Subsequent events, however, have demonstrated that we overestimated capitalisms ability to function properly without strong democratic checks on its conduct. The Occupy movement has thankfully brought this issue to the fore of public consciousness.
By now, we have all seen images of the U.C. Davis police officer casually pepper-spraying defenseless students for their crime of refusing to leave the quadrangle. Davis was one of many locations where authorities used violence against Occupy demonstrators. Elected officials and university administrators have felt no compunction about using force to prevent the political dissent of these citizens.
Contrast these actions with how our nation has dealt with the investment bankers, mortgage lenders, and hedge fund managers who wrecked the world economy. It is hard not to conclude that the fix is in. For example, Federal Judge Jed Rakoff recently rejected a proposed settlement between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Citigroup, finding a proposed penalty of $285 millionwithout an admission of guiltindefensibly small. Citigroup allegedly misled customers into investing in mortgage-backed securities that Citigroup itself was betting against. The bank has been cited and fined for the same or similar behavior repeatedly in the past, including 2005 and 2006. This pattern of small settlements without admissions of guilt is the rule, rather than the exception, for SEC enforcement actions.
Within days of Rakoffs decision, we learned that former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulsonappointed to that position from his role as CEO of Goldman Sachsbriefed Wall Street investment leaders and hedge fund managers in the summer of 2008 on the impending federal seizure of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, on the very same day he told reporters from the New York Times that he expected federal audits to find that both companies were secure. If true, this is the ultimate act of insider trading, since knowledge of the impending seizure of these two institutions lets those in the know escape the financial consequences and even profit from them.
The degree to which our political and legal systems favor the wealthy and powerful is breathtaking in scope and arrogance.
Do you think Secretary Paulson will be punished for this? Dont bet on it. The Obama administration has done little to investigate and prosecute the conduct that led to our current economic circumstances. This is not surprising. The weakening of both banking and securities regulations was accomplished under the Clinton administration, and the architect of that policyLarry Summerswas appointed by Obama to manage the nations economy at the very moment his earlier reforms were enabling the economys meltdown.
I highlight these contrasting snapshots from American law enforcement to illustrate how severely our legal and political systems are stacked against ordinary Americans. Despite levels of economic inequality not seen since the Gilded Age, there is little policy effort to reverse this trend. Rather, public policy today is formulated to advance corporate and financial interests that will worsen, not shrink, inequality.
The degree to which our political and legal systems favor the wealthy and powerful is breathtaking in scope and arrogance. Nowhere is this more nakedly obvious than in Republican tax policy. Claiming, falsely, that the current marginal tax rate is severely curtailing investment, the fix for this faux problem is yet more tax cuts for the highest income earners. If the economy is growing or shrinking, in good times or bad, the preferred policy is the same. In other words, Republican fiscal policy resembles an article of faith, since it is unresponsive to facts, in this case social and economic conditions.
Time and again, we see our representatives manufacturing fake crises and offering phony solutions whose principal purpose is to enhance the political and economic power of the wealthy. For example, the faux problem of vote fraud (there is none) gives rise to Voter ID laws whose intended effect is to drive down voter participation of the poor, working class, and minority voters. Falsely blaming deficits on overcompensated public employees is used to justify the phony solution of union-busting legislation, whose real purpose is to defund and weaken one of the few powerful interest groups favoring the working class and poor. The myth of Social Security insolvency demands that we privatize old-age pensions, which would funnel billions of dollars into the pockets of investment banks and brokerage houses.
The Occupy movement has provided a rare moment of clarity. It has drawn our attention to the very raw deal that our government is providing us, and given voice to the plight of working people. Wealthy interests, in turn, cry class warfare although they and their representatives have engaged in a 60-year assault, launched with the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, on the very reforms that saved capitalism from its inegalitarian excesses. Our future depends on the willingness of ordinary American citizens to re-start history, to reject the current political reality where the only choices at the ballot box are between crony capitalism and craven capitulation. They can begin this process by repeatedly and vigorously laying bare the true agenda of proposed legislation, and holding politicians of all stripes accountable for failing, in every way, to assure the fairness of our political and legal systems.
Tweet
Gary Segura is Professor of Political Science at Stanford University.
Occupy the Future, a forum on lessons to be drawn from the Occupy movement.
But on other points I disagree. It's easy to build up conservatism as a racist, bigoted, science-hating, fact-oblivious straw man. (Even though, of course such strains do exist within the GOP). But when I think about political issues I prefer to think of myself as debating the most reasonable opponent possible. So, to point out a few counter-questions:
-- If the GOP strategy is always to cut taxes, many would argue that the Democratic strategy is to always spend more. Sure, Democratic party leaders are talking about budget cutting, but it's pretty clear that if they had their way we'd be getting more stimulus.
-- I respectfully disagree with Prof. Segura's comments about public sector unions. There is a highly respected scholar on campus here, Terry Moe, who has shown in his research that public sector unions are having enormous and detrimental consequences for state and local budgets, as well as education policy. Professor Moe, like me, votes Democratic. It's easy to write off union reform simply as an attempt by the GOP to dilute the political power of the Democratic Party, even if it's party true. But I also think it's the right thing to do. Yes, we should invest more money in schools, especially in poorer areas. But we already spend lots and lots on education, and without larger reforms, I'm pessimistic that much will change.
In the end, social mobility and economic inequality stem not only from the political system, but also from families and schools. The former are receiving some much-deserved attention, but I wish the latter would too.
Talking of strawmen the article mentions: Republicans twice (about tax policy)
Science 0 times
Conservatism 0 times
and finally
race 0 times
The rest of your post fails to address any of the points actually raised in the article. (In fact your first point has little relevance as it simply rehashes a tired cliche in a neutral manner, while your second, although more substantive, is a mess)
Although your tone is admirable, I guess
Cognitive dissonance playtime is over.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhPdH3wE0_Y&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Apparently the officers were surrounded by students who were refusing to let them leave at the time of the incident.
Also, blaming "hedge funds" for the financial crisis doesn't make much sense.
I am more than a bit confused as to why you think my points are irrelevant or "a mess". Much public dialogue surrounding OWS focuses on how to reduce income inequality and partisan polarization. One commonly proposed solution is to increase taxes -- some would argue that this is always the Democrats' preferred solution.
As I mentioned above, I do think we should raise taxes. We have a large deficit, and should be taking steps to reduce it. Asking the wealthy to contribute is logical, reasonable, and (in my view) fair.
But I don't see how raising taxes will do much to assuage the structural forces driving income inequality. Most economists think income inequality is primarily the result of differences in human capital (ie, see this from Daron Acemoglu, who is a liberal economist at Harvard: http://thebrowser.com/interviews/daron-acemoglu-on-inequality).
That's why education reform (and union reform) seemed highly relevant to me. Government tax policy has contributed to income inequality, but it is not the driving factor.
I find intense partisanship really annoying (no matter which party it comes from). I suggest you try to temper your rhetoric and adopt a more "admirable" tone.