To some on the Conservative end of the spectrum, the whole concept of protest is simply beyond them. Even when the powers that be are grinding our gears, most of us are lackadaisical enough to simply wait for election day to get rid of perceived defective politicians. Bearing this in mind, how am I supposed to explain the demands and expectations of the Occupy Wall St movement to people who generally believe that protest doesn't work?
Well, lets start with a quote from Conservative Fox News Host and Commentator, Sean Hannity: "The average American tax-payer knows that by the end of the day they are going to be on the hook for the trillion and trillions of dollars that we are using to bail out these companies, some of whom have been irresponsible--and they are expressing their frustration, which I think is quintessentially American." Several journalists sympathetic to the “Occupiers” would call this a succinct explanation of one of the reasons why the protesters are, well, protesting. What is amusing is that this is not a quotation about the Occupy Movement at all. This is a quotation about the Tea Party Movement. Hannity actually finds the Occupiers to be un-American. Disapproval of the corporate bailouts is a point of commonality between the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement, but this is not the only grievance of the Occupiers just as it isn't the only complaint of the Tea Party.
After hearing this, you may think that the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement have some common ground in thinking that banks and corporations on the verge of bankruptcy deserved no government hand-outs to prevent their demise. The Occupiers do understand that corporations are the engines of job creation as much as any staunch conservative does. The Occupier does not necessarily disagree with all bailouts, only the unjust manner in which the recent ones are perceived to have been carried out. Liberals I have talked to see a domino effect of job loss on the economy if the bailed out corporations had been allowed to fail. The hard-line conservative would allowed these banks and companies to fail, would have allowed the people employed by said companies to lose their jobs, and sincerely believe that the free market system would right itself on its own. The liberal and most Occupiers want to see these failing businesses propped up with TARP and the other bailouts in order to avoid a true “depression” in the manner of the stock crash of '29. The Occupiers want their fellow Citizen to avoid incredible hardships brought on by losing their jobs. The Occupiers also want to prevent the domino effect of hardship on other average American Citizens who would suffer as a result of the domino effect caused by banks defaulting on loans in the financial sector and the loss of production capacity in the corporate sector. It's a matter of the interconnectedness of things. If auto makers are allowed to go under, then that effects people in other industries who manufacture the pieces that go into the automobile. I would describe this as the reverse of Trickle-down Reaganomics. When several giants of manufacturing fail, all the other companies that contribute components to that manufacture also suffer. This can manifest in further job loss for Citizens employed by those contributing companies.
Does this make the Occupiers seem like walking contradictions? It might, but the truth of the matter is that they know they need these corporations. Average American Citizens need corporations for jobs, but the occupiers believe that banks and corporations need to be held to strict standards that would prevent the misuse of bailout money on personal excesses of already executives. And so, my fellow conservatives, we arrive at the missing ingredient that the Occupiers wanted in these bailouts that has made them so indignant: Regulation. The Occupier sees that these companies were bailed out of necessity to prevent low and middle class job holders from experiencing hardships, they see that there was no accountability: They believe that this federal bailout money should only be used to benefit the rank and file employee and the future sustainability of the corporation itself. But it was not. And “savings,” as it were, was passed on to the common taxpayer.
Over here at Camp Conservative, “Regulation” is a dirty word. Yet we have a problem where compromise will be necessary. Where right meets left, rich meets poor, and have nots meets haves, strict demonization of the other simply doesn't provide an orderly path to fixing the problem. As a moderate, I believe that compromise is the only way that the two party system will work without the entire American political system grinding to a halt. Where that compromise should come from is a matter of opinion, however. I believe that the people in the Occupy Movement have legitimate grievances about the misappropriation of bailout and TARP funds. I don't believe you can just let big corporations fail anymore nor do I believe that the system, left alone, will right itself in a timely and painless manner. I don't believe the average Citizen should be made to suffer when there are alternatives. It simply is not practical to roll back the clock to a time of deregulation, I fact I believe worthy of its own article. The bailouts have already happened. Those who took advantage of taxpayer money for purposes other than securing the future prosperity of our America should be punished. Future bailouts of faltering American mega-corporations will be a topic for future presidents and legislatures of the United States to decide upon. However, I believe that in the future, even a hard-line conservative president would choose bailouts over risking a full collapse of the national economy.
Next week, I hope to talk about deregulation and the rights of corporations.
I hope for comments and conflicting viewpoints. All I ask is that you stated in respectful terms. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." This is a quotation by Aristotle. If you can't abide by it, you will be deleted.
