Responding to Charles Krauthammer's cheap and insulting op-ed

Read the op-ed piece here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-scapegoat-strategy/2011/10/13/gIQArNWViL_story.html

Relevant excerpt:

“Exhibit C. To the villainy-of-the-rich theme emanating from Washington, a child is born: Occupy Wall Street. Starbucks-sipping, Levi’s-clad, iPhone-clutching protesters denounce corporate America even as they weep for Steve Jobs, corporate titan, billionaire eight times over.

“These indignant indolents saddled with their $50,000 student loans and English degrees have decided that their lack of gainful employment is rooted in the malice of the millionaires on whose homes they are now marching — to the applause of Democrats suffering acute Tea Party envy and now salivating at the energy these big-government anarchists will presumably give their cause.”

Krauthammer implies that people who protest corporations are hypocritical if they use these corporations’ products. It is possible, however, to be against corporate influence in politics and still appreciate the value of the corporations’ products. To criticize a corporation’s practices is not to consider the entity inherently evil. The problem is not that big corporations exist but that they exercise so much power with so little accountability, while ordinary people without so much money struggle to have their voices heard.

As for “indignant indolents,” Krauthammer is surely correct that the protestors are quite angry. To call them indolent is a cheap insult, though. It is not as though good employment opportunities are plentiful. It is not a sign of indolence to join a protest against those who have contributed to the prolonged economic crisis (which is a major cause of the unemployment Krauthammer seems to attribute rather to personal vice).

Nor does Krauthammer acknowledge any of the reasons people are angry at Wall Street. Some powerful corporate officers behaved very recklessly and irresponsibly and have not been duly punished for it, nor has enough regulatory tightening been implemented. Big business still enjoys great political power and privilege even after its irresponsible practices helped create a profound recession and massive unemployment. People have a reason to be indignant about that.

It is not clear what Krauthammer means by referring to $50,000 student loans and English degrees, except that he clearly does not think much of those who have those things and are protesting Wall Street. It is true that many people borrow a lot of money to obtain a degree that most well-paying jobs require. Presumably, some of these people do indeed major in English, not in itself a contemptible action. I suppose Krauthammer thinks they would be better off if they had majored in something more like business, but even that is not clear in this economy.

Krauthammer is probably correct that Democrats envy the success of the Tea Party movement. The Democrats might be thinking, “The other side is proving effective in promoting their agenda; we had better do the same.” If Krauthammer means to disparage them for this, he should explain why instead of dismissing protestors inaccurately as “big government anarchists.” People calling for government to tighten financial regulations can hardly be called anarchists. These are people who indeed believe in strong government, but a government that uses its strength to serve and protect ordinary people rather than an elite few.