Written by Thomas Magstadt   

Columnist, Anne Applebaum, posted an article on Slate.org October 17 posing the rhetorical question, "Is the Occupy Wall Street Movement Anti-Democratic?"* Her tentative conclusion: "Global protests may actually undermine democracy rather than strengthen it." Applebaum goes on to make an uncommonly incoherent case against the protesters – something about what they have in common with the anti-globalization movement and how these supposed similarities foredoom OWS to futility and self-defeat because "democracy is based on the rule of law."

She writes, "They are similar in their lack of focus, in their inchoate nature, and above all in their refusal to engage with existing democratic institutions. In New York, marchers chanted, "This is what democracy looks like," but, actually, this isn't what democracy looks like. This is what freedom of speech looks like. Democracy looks a lot more boring. Democracy requires institutions, elections, political parties, rules, laws, a judiciary, and many unglamorous, time-consuming activities, none of which are nearly as much fun as camping out in front of St. Paul's cathedral or chanting slogans on the Rue St. Martin in Paris."

First, the protesters do not suffer from a "lack of focus". That is what Wall Street, FOX News, and the Koch Brothers want everybody to believe. The focus is clearly Wall Street, the devil's own kitchen, the very place, recall, where the global economic crisis was cooked up during the three decades since the Reagan Revolution ushered in the current era of reckless deregulation – and, of course, the attendant orgy of rapacious money-grubbing and greed for which precious few miscreants have been indicted to date. That's the focus.

Second, as to the "inchoate nature" of the protests, what exactly does that mean? The word "inchoate" can mean that a thing is in an early stage of development. Yes, that's true of the Occupy Wall Street movement, but so what? Or it can mean that it's not yet clearly formed or organized. That's true, too. But, again, so what? After all, we're talking about a movement that had, at its beginning, nothing but a little thing called justice – another name for moral force – on its side. It had no money, no fat cat to bankroll the whole effort – no backing from the moral equivalent of the Koch brothers, although one hesitates to use the word "moral" in the same sentence with the extreme right-wing billionaires who finance a front for the 1% called Americans for Prosperity. Come to think of it, if you're looking for an organization that isn't "inchoate", that's not a bad place to start.

Third, the author notes correctly that freedom of speech is still a constitutional right in this country, but conveniently omits mention of another closely related right, namely the right of assembly. There is nothing in the Constitution or in democratic theory to suggest there is a limit to the number of citizens permitted to gather in public places for political purposes or the number of minutes, hours, or days they can remain in place.

Fourth, to assert that citizens who freely choose to participate in a direct action on Wall Street, the world's leading symbol of greed and the proximate cause of our economic discontents, "refuse to engage with existing democratic institutions" and are somehow "undermining democracy" after elected officials in Washington have ignored the voices and plight of the people for three solid years is absurd on its face.

Peaceful demonstrations have always been a perfectly legal way for citizens to participate – or "engage" – in the political process. Has that changed in post-9/11 America?

Moreover, polls consistently show that most Americans no longer believe that their vote counts or that elections matter. Are all these voters wrong? Even on rare occasions when reform candidates manage to get elected to the Senate, they are surrounded by colleagues whose votes routinely go to the highest bidder. Everybody with a pulse knows that money talks on Capitol Hill.

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is now a lone voice in the wilderness that is Washington politics. Former Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin was defeated in 2010 by conservative businessman Ron Johnson who spent over $8,000,000 (that's eight million dollars!) of his own money. Basically, he bought a Senate seat.

Another example: former Congressman, Alan Grayson, the unofficial voice of the Occupy Wall Street movement and, like Sanders and Feingold, an outspoken critic of all the things that have rendered Washington dysfunctional, was defeated in his bid for re-election in Florida in 2010. When George Will called him "America's worst politician" I knew that Grayson was on the side of the angels. Will, by the way, is fast becoming my personal choice for America's worst columnist.

Even if a reform-minded candidate wins, he or she all-too-often sells out once they are ensconced in the sinecure called Congress. And who can blame them?

Congress has created for itself the most comprehensive welfare system imaginable. If you manage to get elected to Congress, you are probably already a millionaire. Indeed, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, 244 members of Congress in 2009 were millionaires or multimillionaires. Millionaires constitute one percent of the population and 40-45 percent of the Congress. If you're not a millionaire when you go to Washington, chances are you will be when you leave. And you get all the benefits (regular pay increases, an expense account that won't quit, health insurance, generous retirement), plus a lot of other free stuff, to which the rest of us aren't entitled.

Finally, it's worth noting that the only violence that has occurred on Wall Street so far has been perpetrated by the police, not the protestors. Did the non-violent civil rights movement of the 1960s undermine democracy in the United States? Or did it finally begin to redress the egregious wrongs done to African-Americans.

Slavery is the worst form of social and economic inequality, but it is not the only form. What threatens us today is a form of inequality that cuts across color lines and unites at least fourth-fifths of the population. The top 20% own 85% of all the privately held money and assets in this country; the top 10% of taxpayers own 72% of the wealth and 90% of stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. The maximum federal income tax rate is only 35% now - down from 94% at the end of WWII, 84.4% in 1950, and 60% in 1980. The super-rich, including billionaires like the Koch brothers, typically pay about half that rate - and are doing everything they can to fight any changes in our loop-hole ridden tax laws.

The plain truth is that we have become an extremely unfair society since the 1980s Reagan Revolution, one in which economic inequality has reached alarming levels. There has never been anything approaching social equality in the United States, but without a major overhaul in the system, our political equality is also at risk. If the United States ever recovers from its present ills, if it ever reclaims it's role as a beacon of freedom and democracy in the world, it will be thanks to the goodness and decency of its people, not the profiteers on Wall Street or the politicians in Washington.

*Readers can find the Applebaum article at:
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/10/is_the_global_occupy_movement_undermining_democracy_rather_than_.html