Of Good Times on Wall Street and Standing Out from the Crowd

The lot of people engaging in the “Occupy Wall Street” (OWS) party in New York City are a lot of things to a lot of people, particularly if you rely upon the glowing news reports about them.  Most Americans, let’s say 99% of them, have not been near any of the party goers, so we have had to rely upon the news media to tell us who and what they are.  A colleague of mine witnessed their march in Washington on a recent Saturday.  There were about 30 of them matched—or even overmatched—by the number of reporters accompanying the march, so in terms of numbers the parties seem to be well covered.

Still, for all that coverage I have to confess that I have not been able to get any specific or focused idea on who they are and what they want.  That is why I am indebted to Democrat pollster Douglas Schoen, who had the bright idea of sending his polling team to the party to ask the attendees themselves who they are, what they believe, and what they want.  As far as I know he was the first to come up with such an obvious idea and remains the only one to have tried it.  The occupiers were fortunately candid and forthcoming in the interviews.  I expect that they may be more on their guard in the future to repeat the party line, whatever that might be.

I understand that the OWS party goers represent 99% of the population (I am not sure if they mean 99% of America, or of the World, or of just New York City—the lack of Yankees baseball caps in the media photos casts doubt on this last possibility), 99% because they said so and the news coverage has repeated it, over and over again.  I suspect that puts me in the 1%, at least that is the percentage of fat in the milk I drink (I prefer whole milk, but my wife refuses to buy it).  In case you are wondering whether you are in the 99% that the OWS groupies represent, here is a list of characteristics of the New York City party goers, care of Douglas Schoen’s polling team, who interviewed 198 of them in their New York City party venue.  See whether you fit the list, keeping in mind that, in the words of O.J. Simpson’s attorney, if the glove does not fit you must acquit.

·         The majority are male.

·         More than half are 30 years old or older.

·        None of them are Republicans, although 14% are either anarchists, socialists, or belong to the “Working Families Party” (that sounds socialist to me, but maybe that just means that they are not Democrats).

·        Somewhat more than half of them, 56%, voted in the 2008 presidential election, and 74% of those for Barack Obama.

·       When asked what bugs them the most, 30% claimed the influence of corporate/moneyed/special interests; 5% claimed “everything” (sounds like the teenagers or maybe the college students); 3% identified America’s democratic/capitalist system; 2% each for bureaucracy, Bush tax cuts, military spending, the Federal Reserve, and Obama abandoning the left; that gets us up to 53% without moving on to the rest of the gripes that they offered.

·       When asked what this was all about, there was a similar variety of answers, with the lead going to the 44% who said mobilizing progressives or influencing the Democrats the way that the Tea Party has influenced Republicans (that may seem ambitious, but I suspect that it is as tough as pushing on an open door given the rest of the OWS demands); curiously, 5% favored a flat tax, a favorite of many conservatives; but 4% called for dissolution of representative democracy and capitalism, and another 4% were for a radical distribution of wealth, which amounts to the same thing; and that brings us to 57% without getting to the rest of the somewhat confused list.

·       When asked who is to blame, George Bush, Barack Obama, and Wall Street tied at 7% each (suggesting that 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue should be as much of a focus for them as Wall Street); while the Republican Party only just edged out “The American People”, 16% to 15%; 5% identified the “Citizens United Supreme Court ruling”; which again gets us to 57% without going any further down the rather long list.

·       The closest point to unanimity among the party goers was that 98% agreed that civil disobedience was a good idea to achieve their goals, and even 31% believed that violence would be O.K., too.

·       Surprising to me was that these anti-Wall Street protesters were almost exactly evenly divided over whether giving TARP money to banks was a good idea, 51% opposed but 49% in favor.

·       Last point here, though there were several other questions, 65% agreed that government had a moral responsibility to guarantee healthcare, college education, and a secure retirement for all, no matter what the cost.

You are excused if you have trouble finding a clear theme in all of this.  If your head is spinning to some degree, just watch some TV or pick up a newspaper and you will learn once again what this is really all about.  I doubt that the reporters or commentators will note that there is almost a universal attitude at the OWS party that someone else is to blame for all things blameworthy.  Nor are they likely to point out that the demands of the unwashed 99ers revolve around getting others to do something for them or give them something.

This latter point seems to me to be one of the more distinguishing points separating the OWS Gimmees from the TEA Party activists.  The hundreds in the OWS crowd predominantly want to have government dictating to people how to live—while they have their hands out or want to put their hands in your pocket (a common complaint among the campers is that their stuff is constantly getting stolen by other campers).  The tens of thousands of TEA Party activists want to be left alone, want to keep what they have earned, want government to step back from making rules to control their lives.

Maybe at this point you are feeling very special, which is not a bad achievement for any writer.  If you feel that you do not fit into the Gimmees 99%, congratulations on being one in a hundred.

Of the Divine Traits of Humans and the Fatherhood of God

The Iliad, the Odyssey, and the History of the Peloponnesian Wars are among the Greek classics that are part of the classics-based education that my son receives at his school, a school that embraces our rich western heritage.  You may suspect and correctly so that he does not attend a government school (though we still get to pay—in many ways—for the bad education that other children receive in the government schools).

It is worthy of note that a common theme in many ancient western texts as well as in most cultures around that world is the descent of some person or group of people directly from God.  Why is that theme found so commonly among the ancients all around the world, east, west, north, and south?  A reading of Homer, Thucydides, and many other writers of millennia ago does not permit the conclusion that the ancients were dumber or less enlightened than more modern writers who would scoff at the idea.  The ancients seemed to have had their share of the dull, the average, and the brilliant as can be found in all ages, ours too.

Could it be that there is something to it, that there is a relationship between God and man that is close enough to be properly called familial, even of Father to son and daughter?  Is this a theme of the ages that will not die because it is based on reality? 

As the Lord prepared Moses for his mission to redeem the House of Israel from bondage in Egypt and restore them to their land of promise, He gave to Moses a vision of His dealings with mankind from its earliest days.  In the vision Moses was shown a prophet named Enoch.  Enoch was also taught by the Lord by vision, a vision in which he saw the panorama of the world only as God Himself could reveal.  When the mighty God wept because of the evil so prevalent among so many, the prophet was astonished and asked how the God of creation could weep.  Part of the Lord’s answer to Enoch included these words:

And unto thy brethren have I said, and also given commandment, that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father; but behold, they are without affection, and they hate their own blood. . .  (Moses 7:33)

Notice the relationship of Father to children, which also meant that in a real and not figurative way Enoch and all of the race of humans were “brethren”.  It was as a father in a very real sense that God wept for the misdeeds of His children and their cruelty toward their brethren, His sons and daughters.  This is a warm and authentic relationship with deity that men and women throughout the ages have craved and have instinctively felt.  

This is not to deny that there is a lot of mythology intertwined with the truth of man’s divine parentage.  There are powerful truths at the core of all enduring myths, the story in the myth often highlighting or demonstrating some fundamental verity.  While the scriptures can present truths in clarity and purity, even the myths of men preserve and transmit fundamental realities of existence.

Thus, throughout the ages and into modern days themes of divine attributes of humanity persist, that raise man above the rest of creation.  Men make and use tools, increasingly complex tools.  In a parody of the words of Walt Disney’s Mary Poppins, I often say to my children,

In every job that must be done there is a tool.
You find that tool, and, snap, your job’s a game.
Without that tool your job’s a hassle.

So men have found since creation, and so tools have enhanced men’s ability to be creators, a divine trait of the great Creator.

Recently I noticed what to you may be a commonplace.  As far as I can tell, only humans have pets.  Other animals may develop symbiotic relationships with other creatures, but only humans seem to develop those special relationships with other species, a relationship founded upon love and affection, of master to pet.  I perceive divinity in it.  If you have ever had a beloved pet, you may sense what I mean.

Perhaps the case of man’s divinity, his innate heritage from God, his Father, can be opened and closed by this one evidence:  man’s ability to make music.  Yes, yes, yes, birds whistle and wolves howl, and so forth.  But they have been singing the same songs since the beginning.  Man’s ability to create music is apparently infinite in extent and variety, because it comes from the Infinite.  It is divine in origin and the clearest example to which I can point of man’s direct familial relationship to God.

The facile retort to this is that men are so evil, how can they be related to the divine?  I respond much as Fyodor Dostoevsky did to this old and thin objection:  the existence of evil does not deny the influence of God, but rather the good that thrives in spite of the evil is proof positive of the presence and influence of God.

My final point would be that none of this is new.  It is the oldest truth of all, understood by the first man and woman.  Paul taught it 2,000 years ago to some of the most sophisticated people of his day, the saints in Rome:

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:  And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.  For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.  (Romans 8:16-18)