Go occupy a job...

This whole "occupy" movement (which I'm absolutely refusing to capitalize) is getting pretty old now. I admit, it was amusing at first, like watching from a distance while a kid throws a tantrum in a grocery store. As long as it's not your kid, it's kind of funny. Now, two months later, it's maddening - like watching an adult throw a tantrum while you wait behind them in line at the grocery store.

Gary Hufbauer and Martin Vieiro wrote a fantastic piece, published in Foreign Affairs on Nov 2 - "Big Business is Good for America." They explain how "corporations" differ from wall street, and how equating the two truly misses the mark for what our country needs right now. Mitt Romney was blasted from the left after he quipped, "Corporations are people, too!" Democrats who've been calling him elitist since the last election suddenly felt vindicated. Ah ha! We've got him! He supports big business! He's not one of us!

In reality, by supporting business, Romney is supporting jobs, and this is the basis of the Hufbauer article. Understandably, this country is full of angry people right now - people who've lost homes and jobs and retirement funds and fishing boats and pick-up trucks. Bored and frustrated, I'm sure they want to direct that anger somewhere. Overpaid bankers and political hacks, quite frankly, aren't bad places to start. But you can't attack business for being business in a capitalist society. Unless you're making a serious push for agrarian precapitalism or some kind of kibbutz system - which some of these jokers might actually push for - you really can't attack the basis of our economy without attacking America. So occupiers - you're attacking America.

Here's the disturbing part of the movement - although I don't like calling something this stagnant a "movement." Douglas Rushkoff wrote a piece trying to explain how this is not a phase and won't be going away and deserves our respect. In his words,

"Anyone who says he has no idea what these folks are protesting is not being truthful."

Fair enough, Doug. We all know they are protesting greed, corruption, inequality, the intermarriage of government and business, oil dependency, obscene mortgage payments, jobs going overseas....right? Look, I'm not the enemy here. I'm not the 1%, so in theory I should feel some sense of belonging to the 99%. It's not that I don't know what they're protesting. It's not that I don't know why they're upset. But it bothers me that I don't know what they expect. I don't mean to sound cynical, and I'm all about fighting corruption and social inequality. But until this group can coalesce around a consistent and practical demand, how is this a movement??? Further, Rushkoff notes this is not like a book and more like the internet, that it's not a focused campaign with a clear goal in mind. It's not a phase.

So...it's a lifestyle? I can just assume these people are going to keep on occupying places? Can you make a living as a protester, sleeping in a tent? Can you raise a family like that?

I believe in the principles - some concrete and some more nebulous - that founded this country. We enjoy the freedom to express ourselves, the freedom of peaceful demonstration. But we also enjoy the freedom to work, to create, to innovate. In general, I agree that things need to change. We need to get people back to work, to create jobs. I agree - who doesn't? - that the gap between the "have-a-lot's" and the "have-not-quite-as-much's" is now a chasm. But how do you change any of that by holding a sign and dressing up like a zombie? Clearly, "occupy" is generating enthusiasm and excitement, particularly among those with nothing else to do right now. I just wish I was seeing them do something.