A Liberals View of OWS... From the New Republic

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

OWS, the movement lacking leadership as well as defined objectives having a reasonable chance of success. The longer it grinds on the more it look like a bunch of misfit radicals looking for the free ride.

However, on the other hand there are certainly those who have a clear vision as to what and why Wall Street needs to change. The reasonable people supporting OWS are doing so to end crony capitalism, corporatism, the unethical practices of banking executives and mortgage lenders, as well as government bailouts of businesses. They also recognize corporate lobbyist must become a extinct group.

Given the majority of people would tend to agree with the above someone ought to be asking the question, why doesn't the reasonable Tea Party folks and the reasonable OWS folks come together and pool resources so to speak? Tea Party individuals want more fiscal discipline and restraint so as to bring balance to national fiscal policy. And the Tea Party people also want an end to some of the same things OWS protesters want.

Keep in mind we're talking about the reasonable and rational folks in The Tea Party and the OWS crowd.

Labels get in the way. If your a conservative you're almost automatically viewed as a Tea Party nut by the liberals. If your a liberal you're almost automatically viewed by conservatives as looney socialists. What many fail to realize on both sides of the political label divide is there is common ground in many area's. Common interests are were dialogue needs to begin. It is where solution to real problems can be found.

In trying to understand OWS better I went out of my way to find a reasonable and rational perspective from the the viewpoint of a liberal. It didn't take me long.

The following I believe is representative of the liberalism that a conservative should be able to do business with for the sake a building a stronger nation.

The New Republic How should liberals feel about Occupy Wall Street? If you follow politics and you think of yourself as a liberal, then you have undoubtedly been grappling with that question in recent weeks. At first blush, it would be difficult not to cheer the protesters who have descended on lower Manhattan—and are massing in other cities across the United States—because they have chosen a deserving target...

But, to draw on the old cliché, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Just because liberals are frustrated with Wall Street does not mean that we should automatically find common cause with a group of people who are protesting Wall Street. Indeed, one of the first obligations of liberalism is skepticism—of governments, of arguments, and of movements. And so it is important to look at what Occupy Wall Street actually believes and then to ask two, related questions: Is their rhetoric liberal, or at least a close cousin of liberalism? And is this movement helpful to the achievement of liberal aims?

This task is made especially difficult by the fact that there is no single leader who is speaking for the crowds, no book of demands that has been put forward by the movement. Like all such gatherings, it undoubtedly includes a broad range of views. But the volume of interviews, speeches, and online declarations associated with the protests does make it possible to arrive at some broad generalizations about what Occupy Wall Street stands for. And these, in turn, suggest a few reasons for liberals to be nervous about the movement.

One of the core differences between liberals and radicals is that liberals are capitalists. They believe in a capitalism that is democratically regulated—that seeks to level an unfair economic playing field so that all citizens have the freedom to make what they want of their lives (emphasis mine). But these are not the principles we are hearing from the protesters. Instead, we are hearing calls for the upending of capitalism entirely. American capitalism may be flawed, but it is not, as Slavoj Zizek implied in a speech to the protesters, the equivalent of Chinese suppression. “[In] 2011, the Chinese government prohibited on TV and films and in novels all stories that contain alternate reality or time travel,” Zizek declared. “This is a good sign for China. It means that people still dream about alternatives, so you have to prohibit this dream. Here, we don’t think of prohibition. Because the ruling system has even oppressed our capacity to dream. Look at the movies that we see all the time. It’s easy to imagine the end of the world. An asteroid destroying all life and so on. But you cannot imagine the end of capitalism.” This is not a statement of liberal values; moreover, it is a statement that should be deeply offensive to liberals, who do not in any way seek the end of capitalism.

Skip

And it is just not the protesters’ apparent allergy to capitalism and suspicion of normal democratic politics that should raise concerns. It is also their temperament. The protests have made a big deal of the fact that they arrive at their decisions through a deliberative process. But all their talk of “general assemblies” and “communiqués” and “consensus” has an air of group-think about it that is, or should be, troubling to liberals. “We speak as one,” Occupy Wall Street stated in its first communiqué, from September 19. “All of our decisions, from our choices to march on Wall Street to our decision to camp at One Liberty Plaza were decided through a consensus process by the group, for the group.” The air of group-think is only heightened by a technique called the “human microphone” that has become something of a signature for the protesters. When someone speaks, he or she pauses every few words and the crowd repeats what the person has just said in unison. The idea was apparently logistical—to project speeches across a wide area—but the effect when captured on video is genuinely creepy.

Skip

In the face of the current challenge from Tea Party conservatism, it is more important than ever that liberals make a compelling case for our vision of America. But we will not make this case stronger by allying with a movement that is out of sync with our values. And so, on the question of how liberals should feel about Occupy Wall Street, count us as deeply skeptical. {Full Article}

The above views are worth considering. They are rational. They are presented in a matter of fact non emotional manner. And they certainly do not represent a socialist view.

Sure conservatives and libertarians will find issue with some of the more liberal elements of this individuals thoughts. But anybody who clearly professes to believe in capitalism is worth listening to and working with.

Labels get in the way of rational considerations sometimes. The world is continually changing and evolving. In all likelihood the process will continue. If what the conservatives and libertarians want to conserve is our republic I suggest it might be a good idea to think a bit more like a "classical liberal."

Via: Memeorandum

Footnote: This post is not intended to suggest conservatives  should drop their  drive to achieve fiscal discipline or accept socialism. Nor should it be read that conservatives and libertarians shouldn't stand by principles that are based in reason. What it is suggesting is that reasonable and rational liberalism, in the vein of our founding fathers ought to be considered not as the "enemy", but rather as part of our understanding of what makes America both unique and great. There is the old saying  "don't cut off your nose to spite your face."  Given today's realities methinks it very appropriate to consider.