Many of you have seen the news about the protests in France over the proposed "austerity measures" of the Sarkozy government. What most of the students who protest cite is the plan to increase the mandatory retirement age from 60 to 62. Many here in America would love to have the chance to retire at 62. We'd also love universal healthcare. So why aren't we taking to the streets and demanding it? After all, we have the right.
What we don't have is the ability. We certainly used to have the ability. If you go back through American history in the 20th century, you'll see that there are major marches and protests whenever the American people saw that change was needed. The Bonus Army. The Bread and Roses Strike. The March for Jobs and Freedom. Marches against the Vietnam War. But today, although there are still occasional marches, there are still strikes, and there are still protests, they don't capture the attention of the American people and they don't happen as often or on as large a scale as they did in the past. Why?
In my opinion, they don't make protests like they used to because of fear. And not the fear you might think. It's not a fear of being arrested or a fear of being beaten or attacked. I firmly believe that our generation is just as willing to risk spending a few nights in jail or physical injury or death to support a just and righteous cause. We are willing to risk that because we know that our sacrifice would lead to a better life for our families and our loved ones.
Rather, I believe the fear is a fear that if we exercise our rights that we will be risking our ability to care for our families and loved ones for the rest of our lives. We fear that we will be fired from our jobs if we protest or march because we no longer have the same protections in the workplace that we once did. And we certainly fear our inability to find a new job in this economy if we lose the one we have. Earlier in our history, workers had more protections than they do now. There were no "right to work" states in the past. General strikes were permitted before the passage of Taft-Hartley.
In addition, there are the implied threats in a job loss. What if you are injured while you protest and you can't work anymore? What if you lose your health insurance? The lack of universal healthcare walks hand in hand with these weakened labor regulations to stymie any attempt by the American people to exercise their First Amendment rights in a way that is powerful and sustained.
In the end, we're not afraid of getting hurt and we're not afraid of getting arrested. We're afraid of having our lives ruined by those who hold all of the cards with no guarantee that the media (controlled by those who hold the cards, of course) will pay any attention. And that's why those who have all this economic power are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to keep true progressives from being elected or re-elected this year. In the end, it comes down to one question. Do you want to vote for the Republicans who will protect your right to protest, or do you want to vote for the Democrats who will protect your right to protest AND your ability to protest?
UPDATE 1: My thanks to dark daze for pointing out the larger problem of which everything I've discussed is a part. It is de facto debt slavery, even though it is not de jure as I'm sure many who are in power would prefer. It isn't just bankruptcy over health problems (although that's where most bankruptcies start). It's bankruptcy caused by the loss of a job and not being able to pay for shelter, or food, or any of the other things that should really be a basic right in this day and age.