I'm a big fan of the Occupy Wall Street movement. And what I like most about it is the ambiguity of their demands. There's a deep honesty to that. It is okay to say the system is broken while also saying you don't know how to fix it. I'd feel uncomfortable if the protesters had specific demands. I don't want my economic policy coming from "guy in tent."
But I worry that the media needs specificity in order pit pundits against each other. It's no fun having two people agree that unemployment is too high. You need one pundit to recommend a specific solution so the other can say he's crazy. Ideally, you also need a villain for your story. That's the standard media model.
So I've been watching in horror as the media tries to transmogrify the honest ambiguity of the Occupy Wall Street movement into a sort of tortured logic with convenient villains. Everyone starts with the same facts:
- Some CEOs are overpaid
- Some banks take advantage of the system (while others fail)
- Some billionaires pay a lower tax rate than other people
- Some CEOs, some bankers, and all billionaires are part of the top 1%
- The top 1% are getting richer while the 99% are getting poorer
- Unemployment rates are obscene.
- Corporate profits are up.
From that set of facts, the illogical conclusion I'm starting to see is that the top 1% are stealing the nation's wealth. Villains! But how many people in the top 1% are engaged in some sort of evil? Is it 1% of the 1%? That's my best guess. I know a lot of people in the top 1%, and all they do is go to work. They hardly ever perpetrate evil. But they do create jobs for the 99%.