Monday, October 17, 2011

Zombie Politics 2011

A pair of recent editorials tries to crack the code to answer a "what does it mean?" aimed at the Occupy Wall Street and other spreading protests nationally and globally. But I'm not sure really that there is a code to crack.

Bernard Harcourt writes an editorial for the NYTimes that OWS is designed to be "political disobedience" - a rejection of the current state of American ideological political divisions, goals, and practices. "Ultimately, what matters to the politically disobedient is the kind of society we live in, not a handful of policy demands." Perhaps he is right.

Casey Seiler writes an editorial for the Albany Times Union saying a leaderless, shambling protest of the OWS stripes can accomplish little - that "Without direction, it's walking -- but dead." Perhaps Casey is right.

From my perspective, the Tea Party folks and the OWS are both expressions of the same deep dissatisfaction with American politics. Serious efforts to provide economic policies, devise solutions to complex global problems and limit the influences of corporate cash support are truly absent in today's political world. And none in charge seem to want to alter the current status in any way, instead doubling-down for more of the same, which leads to less than nothing and nowhere. Those in government, local and national, do not understand any of their failings and remain focused on one goal - election and re-election. Tragedy is poised for performance.

Sadly, as noted by Seiler, the overall effect looks far too much like the chaos of a society overrun by endless, mindless hordes of consuming monsters. The survivors want two things - survival and a way to reinstall some normalcy - but none have all the answers. Make your best guess, try and endure, and try to maintain some kind of human community.

At this point, as in most zombie movies, all I can say is "good luck with that".

1 comment:

  1. Anonymous2:58 PM

    The Looting of America. In 1970 the top 100 CEOs earned $45 for every $1 earned by the average worker. By 2006, the ratio climbed to an obscene 1,723 to one. (Not a misprint!)