Stuart Forman (“Moral obligation must underpin Occupy movement“) looks at the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement and sees in its reflection a society beset by existential worries, alienated by not having the opportunity to contribute, by consumerism, and by the loss of meaning. His is largely a psychological analysis with a moral solution. The poorly-titled letter suggests Stuart’s prescription is for the OWS movement itself to find or promote morality, but we should actually let his arguments speak for themselves: society should be based on the common good and not dedicated to greed. This in fact is what OWS is saying as well. And isn’t this moral enough?
Stuart somewhat unfairly charges that the OWS movement has failed to articulate its goals, although its demands have been clear and unambiguous: among others, re-regulating the financial industry, single-payer health care, affordable student loans, commitment to a national energy program, rolling back the Patriot act, election reform, immigration reform, ceasing to be the world’s policeman, and ensuring that everyone pays their fair share of taxes. While there is no progressive equivalent of Grover Norquist or Glen Beck to hammer away on private media outlets at its dearest issues, OWS is not a top-down movement, so let’s not confuse a diversity of demands and people for a failure to articulate. As Stuart acknowledges, the “system” is in trouble, and lots of things need to be fixed. The OWS people have articulated enough specific reforms for anyone who really wants to listen. Now all that is needed is a political party which represents average Americans and not corporate lobbyists.
There may be a few within the OWS movement who question the entire economic system, but most are looking for a return to a Social Contract that applies to all citizens, not just a small percent. What are our responsibilities toward society and government, and what are its responsibilities toward us? Why is it we live with each other? These questions may have a psychological or a moral dimension, but they are essentially political questions. The moral philosophy of a John Rawls, whom Stuart mentions, is only one approach toward understanding or defining a Social Contract. Ensuring that all of society’s stakeholders are adequately represented by principled political parties and laws which do not privilege one group over another is another. Ultimately, fighting for reforms politically, rather than making appeals to morality, is more likely to produce the real change Americans are still looking for. In the marketplace of ideas and politics, this requires punishing politicians who fail to represent us and demanding that those we have elected do represent us. It is not the lack of morality so much as apathy and ignorance which have created this sick system.
unpublished
Comments are closed.