Some history for thought

As protesters come together to fight for the future, many also come together to help one other understand the reasons we have to fight. Many know at least some of the laws that are behind our economic woes and other problems, some others also understand the very large system that is behind all of this. However, one question that is not being asked (but is important to answer when people might try to defend this broken system) is how did this all begin?

While this post does not have all the answers, here is a brief history behind this turn of events. Specifically, this post focuses on the developments after World War II, when this system began to manifest itself on a very large scale.

It was the start of the Cold War, and America was obsessed with security. It was sought through many means, now many of which are highly interrelated. There was the arms race, which over time built up not only multi-billion dollar industry closely connected to some of the highest levels in D.C., but also a mentality that America desperately needs a large standing army (something Washington warned against). Likewise, intuitively, a strong domestic economy spread feelings of security. For many years, various economic books preached that the Soviet economy would soon outpace America's economy, feeding this mentality that America needed a bigger (= stronger) economy. To an extent, there still seems to be some leftover variations of this mentality hanging around, first with the Asian Tigers and now China.

At the same time after World War II, Washington was flirting with new economic theories. The isolationist policies of the world were being blamed for the cause of World War II, and some figures promoted more global economic integration as a cure. Some of this came in the form of lax trade laws, but also the establishment of the dollar as a medium for exchange (helping set American businesses up for economic predominance). Around the same time, Washington started focusing on new domestic economic policies. Inflation was a primary concern behind these policies, but many also supported the idea of “bigger is better” and that development = prosperity. Some of this is true, but many of these expectations were inflated by the rich economic times people were living in and the blissful ignorance of what woes it could and was causing (case in point being the manifestation of many environmental problems and the still absurdly expensive need to clean them up with Superfund).

Coincidentally (or not), in the 1950s Washington D.C. also began to experience a population boom. The sudden growth of D.C.'s population (not just temporary settlers, as had happened in the past during wars and major national events) is probably mostly attributable to the general trend of suburbanization that took hold of America in the 50s and 60s. But the sustained growth of D.C. (even during the recent recession) more likely than not relied on the increasing comfort between the political sector and the business sector. Even Truman, after leaving office, was offered a position in business. Yet Truman had the forsight to say, “You dont want me. You want the office of the President. And that office is not for sale.” Unfortunately, he was one of the last to believe this.

Eisenhower viewed economic prosperity as the principle of his administration and that government's responsibility was to promote growth. The support for economic growth (narrowly defined by obsolete economic theories, likely helped by special interests) has continued ever since. There was privatization during the Reagan years, Nixon's major agricultural policy shift (as well as others), and (today) the continuation of neo-liberalism, still the predominant economic policy of the World Bank and IMF. Clinton's administration also focused heavily on economic well-being; a sign above his office door read, “Its the economy, stupid.” What was good for Wall Street was considered good for Main Street. But American values have also co-opted these lines of thinking, even if individuals do not completely understand it. The communication of these values is everywhere: “Bigger is better”, growth = good, growth = development, … to name a few.

While this is a very brief history, one might see how 'one thing led to another' and how especially corporations grew so rapidly after the 1950s. But as a final note, it is not only important to know this history, but to remember that this has been an ongoing process for several generations. It has the support of many different mentalities and behaviors (ingrained in American culture), not just laws. In effect, then, the Occupy Wall Street movement today is battling years of history and all that it contains.