Why Aren’t More of Us Protesting Inequality?

[marmar]

from Too Much: A Commentary on Excess and Inequality:


Why Aren’t More of Us Protesting Inequality?
March 17, 2013

A quartet of egalitarian-minded academics have subjected a central political question of our time to rigorous research scrutiny.

By Sam Pizzigati


Billionaire Warren Buffett is still paying taxes at a lower rate than his secretary. Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz last year collected $117.5 million for his labor. The life expectancy gap between Americans of affluent and modest means has widened by five years over the last three decades.

Economic inequality in America hasn’t been this stark since the 1930s. But back then Americans by the millions took to the streets in protest. Why aren’t millions of Americans out protesting today?

Americans aren’t loudly protesting, conservatives argue, because they really don’t care if some people become phenomenally richer than others.

Most Americans, progressives counter, simply don’t yet understand how staggeringly unequal the United States has become. With more awareness, their argument goes, would come more resistance to our unequal social order. ......................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://toomuchonline.org/why-arent-more-of-us-protesting-inequality/

[xchrom]

1. du rec. nt

[Peter cotton]

2. Because being poor is America in 2013 is, on the whole, not as trying as being poor in 1933.

That's not to say being poor is a cakewalk...but there is a material difference between the poverty of today and the poverty of the Great Depression.

[chervilant]

3. Radical Income Inequity

is the term I've created to discuss the oppression du jour, and I consistently follow up any opportunity to describe the minuscule fraction of humans on this planet who own and control more than 45% of this planet's resources -- including human resources. To whit:

Less than 400 people across this planet (mostly old white men) own and control more than 45% of our precious resources. With a global population pushing 7 billion, one must use scientific notation to represent the percentage of our global population that owns the most:

5.74 x 10 (-6)% !!!

That's .000000574% of our global population. The actual fraction representing the minuscule number of soulless hedonists is .00000000574 (I've rounded up...).

We MUST fight radical income inequity!!!

[HughBeaumont]

4. A. Where would we be heading?

Washington, where nearly everyone is purchased, or sit-ins at corporate offices, which are in various locations across the country? And what would Washington do? This problem is a long-standing and complex one largely caused by Big (name industry here) and their lobbyists. It affects nearly everything from elections to public policy. Our still-Republican-controlled Congress and over-filibustering Senate leaves us kind of helpless in this matter. Other than a small handful of Sherrod Browns and Elizabeth Warrens and Bernie Sanders, our government has proven they're really not interested in taking corporations and their leaders to task and many are willing to make life even easier for them, hard as that is to fathom. I'm finding more and more each election cycle that, economically, there is NO OPTION.

B. Who'll broadcast it without casting a smarmy, sneering eye? News anchors are, by and large, one-percenters, and we have arguably the most conservative, corporate-controlled media among industrialized nations. Exhibit A: Erin Burnett. Exhibits B and C: nearly every anchor on Faux and CNBC. Exhibit D: Morning Joke.

C. Who'd be able to participate for even one day, let alone several? I think the greatest reason why Americans don't/can't protest is also one of the greatest reasons for it's vast inequality: No Universal Health Care. You cannot risk losing your job primarily because there are so few good jobs to be had and losing insurance means having to buy it on your own; ask anyone who does how costly that is. On the other hand, if we HAD Universal Health Care, it'd be an employEEs market and corporations know this. How many people can't start their own businesses due to health insurance costs? How badly are wages being suppressed because of health insurance costs?

D. Who'd listen? I'm willing to bet nearly half of America clings to this Horatio Alger myth and this "American Dream" crap; both of which have largely been lost thanks to corporatization, free trade and suppressed real-dollar wages. But, thanks to reason "B" above, they're still hypnotized into believing it even though it's painfully evident that economic mobility in America is worse than any time in the modern era.

I would love, LOVE to participate in a march on this very, very important issue and think it's far overdue; I'm just wondering, with all of the venom directed towards the Occupy movement (even among supposed Democrats), how effective it would be and how it would happen.

[Fawke Em]

7. Does "B" even matter anymore?

Newspapers have kicked out real journalists, who have turned to blogging. They have help from Internet communities all over the world.

Do we really care much what some 1 percenter anchor has to say?

[HughBeaumont]

8. Like it or not, cable "news" is still influential.

Witness 2001-2009 . . . there were more than a few million in the streets in 2003 and every other year after. The mainstream cable outlets ignored (more like "instructed to ignore&quot the protests, the will of the people . . . and kept on broadcasting positive puff pieces about Dear Leader. They didn't care about Occupy until it was an ongoing movement that wouldn't leave and they couldn't ignore.

I agree . .. in the age of the internet, cable news and its opinionated anchors should be fossilized. Yet people still watch it. Yet it's ubiquitous . . . how many times do you see Rupert Murdoch's garbage channel on in dentist's & doctor's offices, hospital waiting rooms, bars, restaurants, auto repair places, etc?

[Fawke Em]

10. I see it on in some of those places and prompty change the channel

In fact, where I live, so many people complain about whatever news is turned on, that most waiting rooms now just show talk shows like Ellen or something benign like Animal Planet or Food.

I think the average citizens is starting to ignore institutional news because he's failed them so completely in the past decade (ironically, the same time I - and many other trained journalists - left the industry because we couldn't afford the shitty wages. Only network anchors are the 1 percent. The rest of us were food-stamp worthy).

[hfojvt]

12. do a few million in the streets

really represent the "will of the people"?

Or just the will of a small percentage willing to hit the streets?

I mean, consider that 61 million people voted for Romney. If 2% of those people hit the streets to protest Obama and Democrats, does that represent the will of the people? It may represent the will of 61 million of them, but there were 65 million who support Obama.

The people had a chance in November 2002 to show what their will was. The Iraq war was already on the table. If the people did not want it, they could have demonstrated that by sweeping Republicans out of office. The majority chose not to do so. The majority basically said "we want to invade Iraq" or at least "we don't mind too much if Iraq gets invaded".

[HughBeaumont]

5. I think the fact that this thread sunk like a damned stone . . .

. . . just like all other unfairness-based threads on DU do, could be my "E".

"Preaching to the Choir" just doesn't put asses in the seats, apparently.

[madville]

9. Charity is a much better option

The politicians will spend it on the military and paybacks to their keepers.

[johnlucas]

11. Because unless it affects someone personally people tend to ignore a problem

Last edited Mon Apr 1, 2013, 02:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Two ABSOLUTELY TRUE Blanket Statements about the Human Race.

1: People are Selfish.
2: People are Lazy.

Our biological programming is centered on survival of the self.
We MUST think about ourselves more than anybody else because no one else will look out for you better than yourself.
They are too busy looking after themselves.
That's why parenting is all about teaching kids (training kids) to think about others in order to have better functioning societies.
Since we are also WEAK individually we depend on each other for survival & our inherent absolute focus on ourselves works against this.
But no matter how well a person is trained, Self will ALWAYS command a large part of our thought processes.

On the other point, human beings only have so much energy in their bodies to use.
The lower that energy gets, the more concentrated a person gets on his/her most essential functions.
You're not thinking about dancing when you're starving.
You're not thinking about figuring out your Rubik's Cube when you're short of breath.
You're not as sociable as you can be when you're deprived of sleep (cranky, short-tempered, & irritable).
You get more & more focused on your essential human needs when your energy depletes.
Like a computer that closes some functions when it can't handle the load of running all the programs at once.

Focus on Self is not inherently bad & has created some good things.
Somebody didn't like how the ground felt when they walked on it in their bare feet...
...so that person invented shoes.
Somebody didn't like the chore of washing clothes on a scrubboard...
...so they invented the washing machine.
Somebody didn't like calculating numbers in their head all the time...
...so they invented the calculator.

Laziness ALSO is not inherently bad.
In fact laziness keeps the world more peaceful than it would be if everybody had massive stores of energy.
Massive stores of energy to enact their destructive selfish impulses.
There would be more murders if people had the energy to concoct the plan of murder, practice the execution of that murder, & make efficient the process to murder better & better the next time they're angry with someone.
No, laziness saves us from this & only gives us people who only have enough energy to cuss you out & maybe give you the middle finger.
Ambition can be dangerous, guys.
It takes lot of energy to set-up plans, work through potential good & bad scenarios, & follow the plan through to completion.
Most people are half-assed about any & every thing & it probably keeps the world from becoming MORE violent & destructive.
And those inventions mentioned earlier ALSO sprang from laziness.

"I'm tired & I don't feel like going through all this!" = Selfishness & Laziness all in one neat & tidy package.

Back to the point of the thread topic.

More people are not concerned about inequality because they're not the recipient of the unfair side of that inequality.
As far as them-SELVES are concerned "Hey this system's working out pretty good for ME."
Millions & millions of people & each & every single one of those millions & millions with their own self-focused agendas & motivations.
Parts of these agendas & motivations may rhyme & overlap but it always breaks down when they stop rhyming & overlapping.
Coalitions are all about creating rhyme & overlap from a groups of distinct individuals.
Alliances you can call 'em. And they're ALWAYS temporary. Can't be anything BUT temporary.

It also takes energy to put all these disparate people together on one page.
And you remember what I said about energy & human beings, right?
Someone may be motivated to forge an alliance but others who are the would-be allies don't have the energy to follow-through with the mission.
Some alliance makers may not have the energy to see through the aggravation of herding cats together.
Or they may have the energy to herd the cats but not the energy to maintain that herding over time.
To respect each member of that alliance & their contributions so they don't feel second-class & taken for granted.

Movements always break down when they fail to recognize these human realities.

People who spend most of their lives at work just trying to put food on the table might not have the energy to be concerned with every disadvantaged person of the world.
To read & listen to the stories of those in a struggle. To empathize/sympathize with them AND take effective action on TOP of that.

Basically we're ALL stuck in our lazy selfish bubbles & it takes a severely motivating event to draw upon that energy reserve called adrenalin to gather a movement.

You didn't really care about cancer until YOU got cancer or somebody close to you got cancer.
You didn't really care about gun violence in the neighborhood until YOU were the recipient of that violence or somebody close to you was.
Not until it hit YOUR neighborhood.
You didn't really care about factories dumping pollution in the public waters until YOU had to drink that polluted public water or somebody close to you did.
You didn't really care about the stupidity of war until YOU were put in the middle of that stupidity or someone close to you was.
You wasn't really concerned about the civil rights of gay folks until YOUR gay son/daughter was denied those rights or some gay relative in the family was.

Unchecked gun violence has been happening in Black communities for decades but nobody was REALLY serious about gun violence until it hit the White suburbs.
It took little kids in Newtown, Connecticut getting shot up before people were finally motivated to do something about all these wide open guns in the country.

Make it personal & real to them if you want to get people motivated to change a system.
And if they're comfortable & secure they won't understand until they hit rock bottom themselves.
The best fighters are those with nothing to lose.

The only reason the greedy rich powermongers get away with their destructive ways is because the no-powered, non-rich are too self-focused & lazy to check them on their crap.
The rich are few in numbers & the poor are many.
So why do the poor continue to lose?
And why do they continue to support a system that doesn't benefit them?
John Lucas