It came to me finally. It's a reference from my childhood, when Boston attorney Joseph Welch confronted Sen. Joseph McCarthy over his hectoring of a young law partner of Welch's. "Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
I think that is the root of it. We are accustomed to living in a capitalist system; we understand that there are winners and losers, rich people and poor people. But we did think, perhaps foolishly, that all Americans were on the same path and that a sense of common decency would restrain the banks and the brokerages and, yes, the U.S. government from destroying an at least marginally functional financial system.
But there was no decency; there was only the lust for profits. When people realized all the scams that had been perpetrated on them, whether their personal fortune or mortgage or retirement plan was at stake or not, they became embittered. The high unemployment rate, the profits that banks were still making - and their plans to bleed their customers even drier - and the willingness of the president of the people, oh please, to make the banks whole again after their obscene excesses - became the catalysts for the "at long last, have you left no sense of decency?" nationwide movement.
And it turns out: not really.
Listen to the political rhetoric. Jobs, jobs, jobs, they say. And how would these jobs be created? Tax breaks for the wealthy, a proven loser in the job creation category, but ever so attractive to the wealthy donors who make up the core constituency of both national parties. Even now, Barack Obama seems to be more interested in raising campaign funds than in confronting the malefactors.
(I am not saying that there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties, although Obama's stance on regulation is just a little muddled for the card-carrying leftie he's supposed to be. There are many social issues on which I prefer the Democratic position; Democrats don't attack scientists as money-grubbers, and one must always think of the people Obama would not nominate to the Supreme Court.)
We feel bereft. The institutions we had counted on have become ugly villains. And so, hopeful as ever, optimistic Americans, the Occupy folks have taken to the streets for the redress of grievances. They have thought to assemble peacefully, make speeches, leaflet, set up tent cities.
And of course, police came to remove the protesters against the status quo. Because the police always do, because they answer to the same big-money people that the politicians do. Jean Quan's dreadful public performance, her tone-deaf statements, her cowardly retreat at exactly the wrong moment, was so sad, particularly when she said, in the aftermath of her police riot, "Oakland is a progressive city."
(Oh, poor Oakland, why hath God forsaken thee? Two bad mayors in a row, and not a lot of strength sitting on the bench. My hometown never can catch a break.)
Occupy is basically a middle-class movement, I think, and mainly white. This is not one of those protests where black ministers take up most of the time on the podium. Maybe African Americans are just unsurprised by the depredations of banks and brokerages, and don't see how a march can change anything. And they may, of course, be right.
Maybe a lot of prosperous humans thought they were too big to fail, but they weren't. Their supposed allies on Wall Street were merely panderers. The supposed agreement between provider and customer was believed to provide a modicum of security. But at long last, it turned out that they had no decency.
A lesson I learned early, back when I was protesting and vigiling to beat the band, is that no one in authority cares about redress of grievances - unless said grievances are submitted in writing at least three weeks before the next meeting. Disorder makes them nervous. The presence of unauthorized people makes them nervous. So inevitably they will stand with the forces of the status quo, whether or not their personal interests match those of the authorities they're protecting.
But democracy should be occasionally disorderly. It should enlist the power of the people to protect the people. More Thursday.
The Occupy Movement continues, in better order and with more sincerity than the government.
Hark, in thine ear: change places; and, handy-dandy, which is the justice, which is the thief? Thou has seen jcarroll@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page E - 10 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/01/DDFQ1LOIU2.DTL#ixzz1cb0xfBis
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please leave a comment. Comments which are abusive, libelous, threatening, or otherwise objectionable may be removed by the editor. Comments which remain posted may or may not reflect the views of the editor. I welcome your comments, suggestions, critiques, and updates.