First, let me take a step back. As many of you know, I've been highly critical of OWS to date. Today, I'm not going to try my best not to be. Instead, I'm just going to offer my advice on how to form a platform and get it enacted so that average people can benefit from it.
Okay...
It seems that some voices in the OWS crowd have realized that they aren't going to have an impact on public policy and the lives of average Americans if they don't come forward with some demands, goals, ideas, whatever you want to call them.
Fortunately, that is beginning. MinistryofTruth's diary yesterday gave some. Laura's FP story today spoke of some. This is a welcome change in my opinion, but more needs to be done if you want to move your ideas forward.
First, should you have a central message everyone agrees on and if so, what should that eventual message look like? There are a couple of schools of thought on this, so let me elaborate.
The first school of thought says this:
Anyone and everyone in OWS should be free to have their own message. Any attempts at conformity, or making people in the OWS group agree to the specific demands of the group as a whole should be avoided. People can have their own priorities, and they should be free to speak out about whatever issues are most important to them.
The second school of thought says this:
A simple and clear message is of paramount importance. Not only does it set the required criteria for devising policy that supports that message, it reinforces a neurological framing in people's minds because it can be distributed and repeated (see George Lakoff's diary from last year to understand the importance of this) that will change people's minds and win them over to your side of the debate. The message needs to be good, but exactly what it is isn't as important as having it in the first place.
I am of the second school of thought. Disparate interests aren't actionable. And if there's nothing actionable, nothing gets done. That's not what you want. You need to craft a message.
I'm not really participating in OWS, so I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about what your central message should be. My first stab at a message it would be something like this:
We seek a more equal distribution of the benefits of our modern economy.
That's actually not very good. But it's positive language, inclusive, and I'm betting the vast majority of OWS protestors can live with it. I would probably add a couple of subitems that will come in useful when developing supporting goals and further outline where the problem lies. Maybe something like this:
We seek a more equal distribution of the benefits of our modern economy.
- Market forces push too much of the benefits of our modern economy to a small number of individuals, leaving millions of Americans struggling to survive and be happy
- It is the role of our democratic government to correct for these market forces so that all Americans have a reasonable chance at financial success and should they fail, a social safety net that supports their basic needs in a way that does not destabilize the economic system
I could talk about why I have all that text in there, but really, this is your thing to develop, so I'm going to try to avoid spending a lot of time here.
Next, you need to create a single list of goals that will support the message. What should that list of goals look like? I propose it's as short as possible, but long enough to really impact the situation were it enacted. Also, remember to use SMART goals:
S Specific
M Measurable
A Attainable
R Relevant
T Time-bound
I think a lot of OWS demands I've seen need to be reformed as SMART goals. For example, let's look at the first goal from Working America:
1. Tax Wall Street for gambling with our money. Pass the financial speculation tax.
This is one of the better ones. Is it specific? Well, sort of. It doesn't set a tax rate. That would make it more specific. Is it measurable? Absolutely - the tax is either passed, or it isn't. Is it attainable? My guess is that it probably isn't. You need congress to pass and a president to sign a bill into law. I don't see a clear path for that happening, so I think this is an overreach at this time. In order to be a SMART goal, I think you have to flesh out this path a bit more. Is it relevant? Mostly. Intuition would lead me to believe that the majority of this tax would fall on the wealthier members of society. The first sentence in this goal gives a punishment justification for the tax. I think giving goals a positive ring and avoid justifications that involve punishment will lead to broader acceptance of the goals. I would reword the first sentence to play into the spirit of the justification in my central message above. Is it time-bound? No. The goal should be concluded with "...before the end of 2012." That way when politicians say they support you, they'll be tied down to certain dates of delivering on policy. So this is how these goals should be reworked for maximum impact.
Now, personally, I don't think a tax on stock trades is a good idea. I think it will lead to less trading, and consequentially, it will reduce the signalling effects that drive corporate decisions. Also, people are likely to leave money in stocks that aren't earning as high of returns to avoid this tax - which will have the effect of reducing capital gains and the taxes associated with them. I'd just prefer to see a higher capital gains tax rate (and couple it with the dividend tax rate). I think that's more attainable than creating an entirely new tax. But again, I'm not involved. This is up to you.
Of course, some of these goals need a lot more work than others:
6. Businesses should invest in jobs. Corporations must stop sitting on their profits and start hiring again here in America.
Specific? No. Measurable? Somewhat. You could measure jobs created vs. profits, but this isn't all that easy, and it runs counter to the model that typically, companies hire to increase profits. So it makes some strange assumptions, but this is again bleeding into policy rather than procedure, and procedure is what I want to focus on today. Attainable? I certainly don't see how. Are we going to pass a law to regulate this? Is this supposed to be voluntary for corporations, with them just deciding to play along? I don't see it. This isn't attainable. Relevant? Not really to the central message I outlined above. A more relevant approach would be to implement a higher income tax on the high incomes or large estates to subsidize employer contributions to payroll taxes (or something along those lines). I don't know if that would work, but it would be more relevant to the central message. Time-bound? Nope.
Lastly, I know a lot of people have a lot of goals. One way to get everyone on the same page may be to look at things from a big picture perspective. In my central message and subitems above, I talk about a decent shot of financial success. What does that look like? Well, let's say, nationalized lending for college is something that gives people a reasonable chance at financial success. That's going to cost the country $10,000 per year for the X number of people who take advantage of the program, so you you need to raise $10,000 * X dollars per year in the taxes you propose. That way, you can build a plan that sort of ties up the loose strings and keeps people focused on the central message rather than all of their disparate goals that are just sorta related.
And remember this isn't a one-shot deal. Because we're making goals time-bound, after the time runs out, you can add new goals to replace the old ones that have passed or expired.
So, anyway, that's my advice for the day. I hope it has given you something to think about as you move forward developing a platform.