Who Wants to Occupy Wall Street?

It turns out that there is a new export from Israel to America: “Our” troublemakers have joined the protests and unrest that has spread across the United States under the banner of “Occupy Wall Street.” But those who define the tone of the movement are a variety of professional provocateurs, leftists and anarchists — some of whom are anti-Semites. Some among them displayed signs that called for an end to foreign aid to Israel. Much like our own protests, their movement (in terms of root cause) is not societal, but primarily political. This does not mean that over there, and here, people did not join with an honest motivation to change things — just that they are unclear on exactly what they want to change or how.

The declared and undeclared target of the leaders of the movement in America (and to a large extent also in Israel) is the free market — in other words, the capitalist system. They portray this system as if it were something tainted that must be uprooted. However, the socioeconomic crisis in the United States is not a result of failed capitalism, but a result of the failure of those regulatory agencies that slept on their watch. The failure is also a result of the Clinton and Bush administrations, which failed to understand that the market, free as it may be, requires mechanisms of oversight and enforcement much like any other human endeavor. In the same way that there are building codes, traffic laws and mechanisms to protect the individual safety of citizens, there is also a need for rules and laws to ensure the smooth operation of the market.

This fact does not detract from the virtues of the free market; rather, it strengthens them. In Israel, as evidenced by the stability and good standing of the banking system, these rules are generally adhered to. This is not the case in America. What has characterized America in recent years is not a free market, but a wild and anarchic market. Economic anarchy is no less dangerous than the political anarchy that the leaders of “Occupy Wall Street” espouse aloud. Anyone who rallies against the free market as an economic system does not understand that there is essentially no alternative, because all other approaches will not only act against the citizens but will also bring ruin to democracy. That, in fact, the free market is one of the essential ingredients of a democracy, on the same level as free speech or the rule of law. Even social democracy is nothing more than capitalism “lite.” Marxism — which some claim still has relevance, even after it faded in Stalin’s Gulags and in the ailing economies of Eastern Europe — has failed spectacularly. This is because it ignores both the characteristics and aspirations of mankind and the fact that there is a basic connection between the aspirations of entrepreneurs to expand the scope of their business and the economic improvement of the consumers, their customers. When an industrialist or trader ignores this self-interest, they eventually lose. And if an increase in competition and an improved situation, like what we saw following the cottage cheese boycott, is evidence for a free market victory, then great!

The “Occupy Wall Street” movement meanwhile received a political boost when President Obama, who is not pleased with polls on his prospects in the 2012 elections, decided, against the advice of many of his advisers, to adopt the spirit of the movement. However, according to various analysts, including those who support the president, this move is likely to prove to be a boomerang. First, it is difficult to claim the crown of leading the fight against Wall Street when many of the officials within his administration have come from its ranks — something that the present administration, no less than its predecessor, has improved on with many of its star players. But what is perhaps more important is that many from the Democratic Party, as well as potential voters, do not particularly identify with the “Occupy Wall Street” movement. It is strange that such a skilled politician as Obama has forgotten the lessons of the late ’60s. Then, if memory serves, the disruptions at the Democratic [National] Convention in Chicago and the violent protests on university campuses promptly heralded a Republican election win. Whether or not President Obama wins or loses from his move, Israel will surely lose from its donation of a few Israelis to events unfolding on American streets. The Americans, those who support and those who oppose the protests, do not appreciate foreign influences in their internal affairs.