I have been trying to avoid just posting links to articles that, while interesting to me, probably don’t ring the bells of many others. However, the Insight section of yesterday’s SF Chronicle contained this terrific piece by a guy previously unknown to me: Paul Saffo. After reading it over a couple of times I found myself nodding in agreement, and in the end hoping that a lot of the possibilities he outlines will come true.
The article is short, so you can read it without sacrificing a lot of time. Here is an excerpt early on that set the tone for me:
Comparisons of this movement-in-the making and the '60s are as tempting as they are obvious. Now as then, it is well-educated, restless youth who are in the protest vanguard for the simple reason that the actual downtrodden are too busy trying to survive to devote time to a cause. However, the '60s student activists marched against a backdrop of prosperity and low unemployment. The Establishment had jobs waiting for the anti-Establishment protesters whenever they decided to hang up their love beads. Today's new grads are faced with diminishing salaries and jobs in areas that do not employ the skills learned at university. Occupy's activists aren't just marching to save others - they are marching on behalf of their own futures.
The current economic climate contrasts sharply with that of the '60s, when an affluent and complacent middle class acted as social ballast against radical change. The middle class today is smaller and buffeted by underwater mortgages, unemployment and disappearing 401(k)s. This is an insecure population likely to agree with the sentiments of the demonstrators and, as the Tea Party has already shown, likely to protest as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment