If the events of 2011 could be wrapped up and summarized in one word, it would be “protest.” Beginning in Tunisia in December 2010, political protests spread throughout the Middle East, which resulted in a civil war in Libya, an ousted dictator in Egypt and movements in Tunisia, Bahrain, Syria, Yemen, Algeria and many other countries.
Thus, the Arab Spring was born.
Back in the U.S., a populist movement was stirring, as the domestic economy remained stagnant. The promise of the American dream of economic prosperity slowly drifted out of reach for students besieged with student loan debt, families unable to pay medical bills, workers laid off from their jobs and retirees with no retirement funds.
The movement called itself Occupy Wall Street.
Eventually, like the Arab Spring, similar demonstrations began to coalesce — in Oakland, in Egypt, in Canada, in Colombia and even New Zealand — united under the slogan, “We are the 99 percent.”
One of the movement’s main concerns was income inequality in the U.S., specifically the vast and growing disparity between the top 1 percent of the income bracket and the remaining 99 percent.
One of the main criticisms is that the Occupy movement has no clear agenda, no leader and few tangible goals. According to the critics, it’s just a lot of entitled whining.
In a survey released Jan. 2012 by the Pew Research Center, two-thirds of respondents said they perceived “‘strong’ or ‘very strong’ conflict between the rich and the poor — an increase of 19 percentage points since 2009.”
The percentage increased across all age brackets as well as all income brackets.
Occupy Wall Street has appropriated the general consensus that this divide exists, into a call for our government to listen more closely to the needs of voters and not political campaign contributors.
The current economic climate, though now it seems to be sluggishly improving, has brought about much concern over the increasing federal budget deficits, high unemployment rates and economic instability.
Mother Jones released a chart using data from a Jan. 2012 Gallup poll that showed, as family income increased, people were more likely to be concerned about the budget deficits and the federal debt and less likely to worry about jobs and the unemployment rate.
Living in a democracy means having to listen to other people, even when it is difficult to relate to their concerns.
Those earning a lower income are less likely to be worried about the nation’s energy future while they struggle to fill up their gas tanks. Children growing up around gang violence in inner cities probably aren’t going to care about the possibility of China overtaking the U.S. in economic and military power.
People who have been laid off in the midst of the Great Recession are probably going to prefer that Congress addresses jobs and affordable health care over trimming the budget on the backs of those who depend on social programs.
Living in a wealthy country, many Americans have the leisure to think about next year and the next decade. They’re financially unconstrained by next week’s grocery bill or tomorrow’s rent.
The problem with the wealth divide is not that some people have more than others, but that the concerns of those with lower income do not carry enough weight with our leaders.
Reach the columnist at skthoma4@asu.edu
Click here to subscribe to the daily State Press newsletter.
