Today in my vanpool I tried really hard to explain why I support OWS, and I couldn't help but feel that I did a lousy job. It started when the two guys commuting with me today started dissing the movement. They started out with eye-rolling (audible, I was in the back seat and heard it loud and clear) about the lack of clarity and focus, the diversity of purpose ("they're complaining about everything!") and then they opined that it was just a bunch of people who will protest anything. Imitating a "protester" one said "I don't know what we're protesting, but it's a great party!" They said it was right and proper that the people at Occupy San Francisco and Occupy Seattle had had their possessions taken away, saying that if people break the law, they should expect what they get.
Now, I'm largely a lurker on dKos. I sometimes comment on other people's diaries, rec and tip and share on Facebook. But I've never published my own diary before.
And I'm kind of a lurker in my daily life too. I tend to keep my mouth shut when surrounded by people I don't know. I feel deeply, but I'm one of the millions who are afraid to speak out - afraid I will stumble and say things wrong and end up hurting my cause through my own ineptitude. But this morning these two men got to me. I had to at least try. I mean, I really don't think these two are right-wingers. They're not nutcases. They're 40ish Seattleites, husbands and fathers. The usual talk in the van is about our horrible traffic or micro-brews or the relative merits of the local pho shops.
So I plunged in. I tried to explain why I support OWS. I tried to express why it makes sense to be so damned angry at Wall Street, and at the corporate takeover of our political system. I tried to praise the vitality of a true grass-roots movement. I tried to speak intelligently and present facts. And they argued with me, marshaling talking points that sounded like they came straight from Limbaugh. At one point, I can't remember exactly what it was I heard, but I said where do you get your news, anyway? Fox? And one was silent, and the other said "and CNN, and BBC..."
They actually said that the sub-prime mortgage crisis was caused by laws requiring banks to give loans to people who could not afford them. They believed this. Both of them. I argued that no one forced the banks to make bad loans but it's so hard to be coherent when faced with assertions of crap like this as a priori evidence.
The thing is, I get so worked up that it's hard to be coherent, period. I can't cite sources or statistics. I try to talk about wealth inequality and tax fairness, and they hit back with "the Bush tax cuts saved my family thousands last year." And I think ... thousands? Shit, you make WAY more than I do... And then I say "Obama isn't proposing to roll back all those tax cuts, just the ones on people making over a quarter million a year. I am guessing you don't make that much." Did that penetrate? I'm really not sure.
I did manage to point out several things: that the economy was much healthier when the tax system was more progressive; that it was decimating our financial regulatory system that did more than anything else to ruin our economy; that I was laid off a perfectly good job so that the CEO of my company could present a "healthier" bottom line to the shareholders and that when the 2-month temp job I'm commuting to in this vanpool is over, I'm back on unemployment at less than half the money.
And of course these men aren't strangers, I have to see them tonight when we ride home together. I want to maintain a friendly atmosphere. So eventually we segued into how income tax is handled differently in different countries, and then the ride was over and we went to work.
But I want to be a voice for this inspiring movement we're seeing. I don't want to lurk my way through it. I wish I was better at this.