Why Wall Street?

I've been struggling to wrap my brain around the Occupy Wall Street folks for a while now. This is partly because I originally viewed them as a variation on the Tea Party's themes. It seemed to make sense; both are angry about the bailouts and how Washington has embraced privatizing gains and socializing losses. The Tea Party's long-term solution is to drain the swamp by cutting off the flow of money. That isn't what occupy Wall Street is about at all, though.

The striking difference is most easily seen in the 99% photos. The central theme of the Tea Parties is clearly "government should do less with less" (and then argue about where and how much). This is just as clearly not something Occupy Wall Street is interested in. Their concerns and anger are much more personal, and they want something done, even if they can't quite articulate what.

For me, this was confusing. On the one hand, they don't want government doing less, and on the other hand they clearly see that government spending is boosting the bank accounts of the already wealthy and not actually solving problems. Why not occupy Pennsylvania Avenue? After all, it was the President and Congress who choose to pay the bailouts, even over the objections of Wall Street in some cases.

It didn't make sense to me. The easy answer would be to say that the Occupy Wall Street folks were stupid, but generally saying that misses the more interesting reality on the ground. So I kept asking questions and came across a few things that fit rather neatly into the puzzle. Mostly, I think it boils down to there being two completely independent conversations about the role of our government going on simultaneously in this country.

Jesse Jackson Junior recently "called for full government employment of the 15 million unemployed" in America. Some, especially conservatives and libertarians, are going to argue that we can't spend the money. JJ Junior, however, isn't talking to them, and he's not alone. A sizable chunks of the voices in the American conversation have already decided the money is going to be spent. The big argument, for them, is how it is to be spent.

JJ Junior wants the federal government to employ 15 million people. Obama wants to spend 447 billion on a new stimulus plan. He doesn't have the money yet, but the assumption is that this ball is in play and the Occupy Wall Street crowd is tired of not getting their share. Even some of my most liberal friends have batted around the size of the checks Obama could have cut for every man, woman, and child in the country if he'd simply disbursed the money equally across the entire nation. But they don't say this to refute the notion that the money should be spent; instead, they argue about how it should be spent.

From this perspective, the Occupy Wall Street movement and the 99% pictures are understandable. If you start from the assumption that we're going to spend almost 4.5 hundred billion dollars, then it is perfectly reasonable to ask why we appear poised to spend this money to support the jobs of people who are incredibly rich instead of those who are struggling. It also makes sense to vilify Wall Street and the banking industry while giving government a pass. Pennsylvania Avenue isn't the focus of Occupy Wall Street ire because they recognize that Washington picks the winners in this game. Their enemies are Wall Street because Wall Street has done a much better job in securing for itself a larger share of a finite pie of government largess. The struggle is likely to turn vicious (though probably not violent) because it is very much a zero-sum game with very short-term goals.

So far, conservatives have failed to jump into this fight. I think that's wise. The dangers of wide-spread federal employment should be fairly obvious by now, and time and math seem to support the Tea Party argument.

The danger for the Tea Parties, of course, is in being sidelined from the argument. For the Tea Party, the risk is probably worth it, and it should help them refocus their efforts on gaining control of the party apparatus used to select candidates for legislative positions. Executive offices are sexier, but the money flows through congressional assemblies. Choking off the money, and draining the swamp, will render the argument between Wall Street and its occupiers moot.