This quotation cannot just be one of several campaign slogans, but, and as it did for Martin Luther King, Jr., must serve as a phrase that motivates politicians to uphold the social contract and create the "change that we need [and demand]"; especially now and regarding the United States financial system.
Who will roll out the tumbrels so that we can haul away the manure of the United States’ financial system?
One editorial and three articles in Sunday’s New York Times (2009 March 28) describe the American people’s anger at the U.S. financial system and the politicians who enable such a system, and the futile efforts to use current legal tools to change and/or fix the system.
Will the American people’s anger express itself at the 2010 elections; especially if they perceive there is a failure of action on the part of the Obama Administration and Congress?
Yes, I think so; and the following passages from several New York Times articles may serve as an enlightening look at the current anger of the American people and why my answer to the aforementioned question is what it is.
In the NY Times editorial, "Questions for Reform" (online edition, 2009 March 28) the editors highlight three issues on reform. Below is a passage on the issue: "What are we trying to fix, anyway?" (boldfaced emphasis added).
"It is clear, however, that there is bipartisan resistance to a thorough investigation of what caused the collapse. There have been hearings galore. But they are often little more than hazings of corporate executives and government officials. Even the illuminating hearings have not been connected in a meaningful way that will help us all understand what went wrong.
Without an investigation, the reform effort will be at best, hit or miss, and at worst, a charade. Congress should start now to gear up for an investigation, using as its model the 1930s Pecora inquiry into the stock market crash, or the Watergate hearings of the 1970s. The investigation should not be performed by outside experts, like the 9/11 commission, whose report Congress is free to accept or reject. It should be part of the Congressional process and include an investigator with subpoena power and the right to participate in the questioning of witnesses, as well as to prep lawmakers for the hearings." Editors, NY Times
In the NY Times article, "We’re Not the Boss of A.I.G." (online) Carl Icahn raises the issue of weak corporate governance:
"Sadly, though, under American corporate law share ownership does not count for much. Mr. Frank might be surprised to learn that a lawsuit would have almost no chance of success in court, even for a majority shareholder like the government. A.I.G. would most likely argue that the oft-cited "business judgment" rule gives management wide latitude to set compensation without shareholder interference. What the government should have gotten was board representation in return for its large investment in A.I.G." Carl Icahn
Sudhir Venkatesh’s article, "Feeling Too Down to Rise Up" offers a look at why public anger has not resulted in public demonstrations and suggests their may be a time lag (a la the public protests of the 1930s):
"Today widespread anger and collective passivity exist side by side. To explain this seeming contradiction, we might look for clues — as so many are doing — in 1930s America. Then, as now, the citizenry reacted angrily to high unemployment, mass layoffs and a crippled banking system.
But it was only several years after the stock market crash that large-scale protests, bread riots and street rebellions began to occur in small towns and big cities. That’s the most pertinent lesson of the Great Depression: people waited, with relative patience, for years for some government response before anyone looted a grocery store or fought off police officers who were evicting families. So it’s possible that if our economic hardships endure, civil unrest could follow.
But if American anger remains corralled on the Internet, into e-mail messages to Congress and in sporadic small-group protests, it is unlikely that the Obama administration will do much to assuage the anger of taxpayers. Administration officials certainly don’t seem concerned that rage will heat up and overflow; after all, anticipating unrest would mean a broad and intensive campaign to shore up housing, food and welfare safety nets. The proposed budget contains a few such line items, but a comprehensive, coordinated program to prevent violence and defuse anger would need sustained commitments from mayors, service providers and civic leaders. " Sudhir Venkatesh
Gretchen Morgenson’s NY Times "Fair Game" article, "Shareholders Who Act Like Owners" describes what could be viewed as "company approved" embezzlement:
"And according to the Louisiana Municipal Police Employee Retirement System, which holds 85,000 shares of Chesapeake, the payout awarded late last year to Aubrey K. McClendon, the company’s chief executive, certainly seems ripe for inquiry.
Rather than filing an expensive and possibly futile suit against Chesapeake’s directors, the Louisiana shareholders have initiated a "books and records demand" in a state court in Oklahoma, where Chesapeake is incorporated. If the court allows the proceeding, shareholders can examine corporate documents to see if the board’s approval of Mr. McClendon’s bonus was proper.
We’ve been here, quite notably, once before, when shareholders sued directors at the Walt Disney Company, a case decided in 2005. That suit, which began as a books-and-records demand, related to the $130 million exit package that Michael Ovitz snared after just 14 months of work, and alleged that Disney’s directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders. The plaintiffs lost the suit, but directors were put on notice that they had to be able to justify their pay decisions.
Chesapeake, an oil and gas producer in Oklahoma City, awarded the $75 million to Mr. McClendon as a result of a new, five-year employment agreement struck on New Year’s Eve by directors and the executive. Mr. McClendon’s new agreement replaced a relatively new, five-year contract struck in 2007 that, obviously, had yet to run its course." Gretchen Morgenson
These articles highlight what could be viewed as more violations of the social contract.
If concerted, corrective action is not taken by the Obama Administration and Congress, then "the fierce urgency of now" could turn into the fierce demonstrations of tomorrow.