Varying Perspectives in our Ever Changing World

I appreciate online media because I can see many different perspectives. Two photos have surfaced that "poke fun" at the hypocrisy of the two newer political factions in our society. The Tea Party is against all taxes while the Occupy Wall Street movement opposes corporate greed.Both groups want systemic change in our society.

While the Tea Party group believes taxes are bad and should be lowered or rescinded altogether, not everyone believes this. Skeptics of their view point out that we have all depended on and still do depend on the government for many services. Those opposed to much of the Tea Party movement point out that government acts in ways that benefit our society yet no single individual would be able to do on their own, such as educating all children in K-12 schools.

While, the Occupy Wall Street movement believes that corporations are not acting in responsible ways, some disagree with them.  This photo was created to point out that occupiers own products created by corporations. Those who oppose the occupiers believe corporations are "job creators." Any conditions placed upon corporations are seen as hindering their ability to create jobs, therefore are the root of our economic downturn.

What unites both groups opposing these populist political movements in the US is that they are realists. Essentially, they point out that "this is how it is and how it will continue to be."As Paulo Freire would put it in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, "The oppressors are the ones who act upon the people to indoctrinate them and adjust them to a reality which must remain untouched"(94.). They paint the illusion of a static world that has never existed - things are always changing.

If the Tea Party were successful in cutting taxes it would mean significant cuts in government spending. Many argue that this dramatically change should already occur as for every $1 in taxes received the US government spends $1.40. The near default on the US government debt this last summer is an example of how serious this group wants to be taken in our political arena. We may see mandatory cuts and a possible Constitutional amendment vote if Congress cannot follow-through with its compromise to resolve that impasse.


If the Occupy Wall Street movement is successful, then we could see corporations being more highly regulated. Their current unlimited spending in politics might be thwarted through a Constitutional amendment. Environmental and labor laws would be strengthened and enforced much greater than they currently are and be applied globally to equalize the economic playing field.
What I appreciate both photos show is that we are all interdependent. However, we must decide what directions we want to take our society. This means delving into issues, researching them, taking sides, and constantly reassessing things while actively pursuing that change. Simply, things are always changing and we should along with them.

As far as my perspective, I have paid attention to both of these movements. Tea Party folks believe they are being oppressed by the government and its high taxes. However, I found this chart from Reuters that counters the argument that taxes are excessively high. Taxes are essentially the lowest in six decades, and through many that are considered great for our nation economically. Oppression in the form of grueling taxes is clearly not something I would consider a problem given this context.

However, the other issue they bring up of having a balanced budget should be addressed. If we are spending 40% more of what we are making in taxes, that is equivalent to about 6% of the economy. That means that without other countries and investors pouring money into our Treasury bonds, we would lose 6% of our GDP in one swipe. We also must pay this borrowing back with interest. Therefore, I do agree with their argument that spending is out of control. The question is, do we raise taxes or make cuts to our spending? The Tea Party movement has ruled out taxes, but the debt to GDP graph clearly shows that taxes have historically been higher.

So why are people in the Tea Party and Wall Street movements so angry about current conditions in society today? Both groups are fed up and angry enough to organize around economic issues. Have wages not been keeping up with inflation?

Looking this date up, I found that median wages have essentially been slightly increasing since the 60s. However, they have not been increasing along with productivity. The biggest graph to likely set off warning bells and perhaps inspired the Occupy Wall Street movement is the one showing wages compared to the top 1%.

When you think about how often people in the US go without necessities like health care, it seems natural to get upset about this inequity. Clearly there are those with the means to help those lacking resources. So far, there is little that has changed these dynamics.

While I think one can ponder these two different movements and what they could mean for our society, it comes back to communication. Do those who are for or against these movements speak the same language? Tea Party folks watch Fox News while Occupiers may not watch TV but listen to MPR and Democracy Now. The media many are choosing to listen to may not always speak to the same issues or use the same words. They have their own unique words and ways of conveying news stories that seem to be diverging just as our political parties are moving further apart. What is just as important as what media we consume is whether we are critical of what we are perceiving in the world.

As Freire writes, "Only dialogue, which requires critical thinking, is also capable of generating critical thinking. Without dialogue there is no communication, and without communication there an be no true education." (92). What both groups need to do is research the situation we are in in society and start discussions about what needs to change. This seems a simple matter, yet it is not something people are particularly good at all the time.

We tend to belong to different sets of beliefs and values long before we delve into them. Some people would rather justify what they already believe rather than challenge them. To challenge yourself on issues and values would mean that you would have to become vulnerable and admit being wrong. The myopia of those who have political discussions has become quite extreme so that some choose not to identify with any group and seek to distance themselves from it.

One occupier who stayed overnight in Minneapolis at the plaza stated: "I'm a schoolteacher. I'm 61 years old, I didn't want people thinking it's just the lunatic fringe progressives doing this or liberals." Beaudet said. "I want them to understand that it's normal people who feel this way and I'm a normal person." Then there are others like presidential candidate Hermain Cain who says the occupiers should get or create jobs if they want to resolve systemic inequities in society and blame themselves for not being able to do so yet. I can surmise from this that the schoolteacher is the one much more apt to question ideology before speaking or taking action.

I certainly feel that problem-posing education would look at issues these groups bring up. We should research to realize the extent of announced problems. Then we should seek to find viable solutions for them. The banking system clearly cannot take up these issues without students pondering more and more questions themselves, that a teacher may not be able or want to answer. However, if we are to be educators of students who are to deal with all the various issues of our world, a problem-posing educational approach would allow students the room to research and discuss much more the things they will be dealing with during their lives.