Though not exactly a blue wave, the last election did manage to wrestle control of the House Of Representatives from the Republicans to the Democrats. And perhaps the most celebrated Democrat to take office is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She not only campaigned as a spitfire, she entered office that way by calling Trump a racist, calling for a 70% tax on the rich, defending a fellow newly elected representative who has called for Trump's impeachment, pushing New Green Deal despite the lack of support from many establishment Democrats, as well as posting a video of herself dancing. She has been grabbing headlines with her political extroversion, but is she setting the kind of agenda for herself that will allow her to be re-elected in two years?
I ask that question because I support her overall direction despite having some misgivings about the details. And so what are her chances of being re-elected if despite the noise she has made, she accomplishes nothing while in office? And if she fails to be re-elected, won't her seat be returned to an establishment candidate from either the Democratic or Republican parties? And if that happens, what will she have contributed to the future?
Occupy Wall Street (OWS) started with the grabbing of headlines. But it wasn't long until our encampments were dismantled and we fizzled out of the national spotlight. I was a member of OWS and fully supported its goals. But we made some fundamental mistakes that contributed to our demise. The most prominent mistake we made is that we asked society to punish the 1% for their sins. It's not that we were wrong in our accusations against the 1%, we weren't. In fact, the sins that we cited back then have continued to grow even during Obama's Presidency.
But our major mistake is what really sunk us. For in calling on society to punish the 1% for its sins, we gave ourselves a burden of proof that we couldn't bear. For we had to prove our accusations to many who were riding on the coattails of the 1%.
Had we implored the 1% to join the rest of society in an collaborate effort to solve the problems we had documented, then the burden of proof for our accusations would have been placed on the 1%. For any reluctance to cooperate with the rest of the people would have become evident. That still may not have produced a better end result, but at least the 1% would have to prove themselves. In addition, the 1% would not have been put in a corner where fighting back was its only response.
The above is the lesson that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could learn from OWS. Instead of making it an us vs them battle between the extreme haves and the rest, she should be inviting the wealthy to join the rest of society in solving our problems. That invitation to join the rest of society must include a call for the wealthy to share their power and wealth rather than to hoard it. Such an invitation to join the rest of society should implore the rich to not use their wealth as a mute button on the voices of the 99%. Such an invitation is preferable to trying to silence the voice of the rich. That invitation to join the rest of society should request the presence of all in discussing how we will solve our problems rather than changing from one vanguard leadership to another.
In inviting the wealthy to join the rest of society, their response is all the proof we need to show whether they are for society or are just milking the 99% in order to maximize their personal profits. Perhaps the public would react significantly to an anti-social response from the 1% or perhaps not. In any case, inviting the 1% to join the rest of society would put the wealthy in the position of having to prove themselves. And then it is up to the rest of us to respond appropriately to any abundance of lack of proof of the wealthy's care for and commitment to society.
No comments:
Post a Comment