In previous posts about the movement, I poked fun at the seemingly absurd and logically inconsistent demands posted by one member of the movement. I even came up with the sarcastic nickname, “Occupussies” to rival the similarly lewd label of “Teabagger” for the Tea Party movement. I also pointed to the small size and scale of the Occupy Wall Street-inspired Foreclosure on Wall Street West as an example of how the media may have been overplaying the movement’s significance. I also covered movements that have sprung up in reaction to or in parody of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Lastly, I argued that unless the OWS movement joins an established power base, or erupts into violence, it will fizzle and die.
Suffice it to say, my coverage of the movement has been anything but balanced.
However, I am sympathetic to the movement’s argument that there is too much corporate financing of election campaigns. I would contend that union-financing of elections is similarly egregious. I personally would ban private institutional and individual donations to political campaigns entirely. In its place, I would establish a public fund available to both political parties, in equal allocations.
The main wrinkle to this proposal is that third-party candidates would lose out. Therefore, the fund would have to allow for a process to accommodate these interests as well. I just don’t know how to achieve this solution in an equitable manner at this point.
In the interest of a more balanced approach to the OWS movement, one progressive blogger recommended that I post the following video. He believes it might provide readers with a more sympathetic view of the movement. I disagree, primarily because the behavior of the people in the video seems far too communitarian for my tastes. The video also shows the group organizing via modern mobile devices, which the very corporate interests OWS opposes have made possible. The same progressive blogger has answered the second criticism with the following comment on Whatever Works:
“This argument gets used a lot about the environmental movement, too. I don’t think it’s fair in either case. People are part of the society they live in. There isn’t really a feasible way for them to opt out of corporate America and still live within their homes and families. It’s difficult to impossible to abstain from corporate America, even for the Unabomber.”
Either way, you can decide whether this video via The Maddow Blog and MoveOn.org inspires or annoys you.