Supply and Demand; basic Econ 101. This
fundamental law describes a dynamic between two variables which can be applied
to any field. The relationship is
inverse so as the supply of something decreases, say gas, the demand increases.
Such is the case in our American political system. The supply of adequate leadership
and representation is rare and on the decrease if one examines the field.
The movie
“The American President” with Michael Douglas comes to mind. In an exchange the fictional president is told the following:
“People want leadership, Mr. President, and in
the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the
microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl
through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water,
they'll drink the sand.”
Well I’m not criticizing
our President alone, because our system doesn’t allow for the country to be run
by one person, no American monarchy here.
However, in his attempt to achieve bipartisanship he has compromised
much of what he’s tried to accomplish. With our representatives caught up in a
political game where representation is on sale to the highest donor it makes
perfect sense that the people would begin to cry out for change as the demand for leadership skyrockets. We saw
this in part with the Tea Party movement, which I’m still skeptical about and now we see the rise of the “Occupy Wall Street” or "The 99%” movement, which
could grow into a significant power with its populace anthem.
In
dealing with consumer products, when the demand increases either the price will
increase, which could hurt sales if the good is elastic, meaning substitutes exist
in the market or supply is increased to a point where the market achieves an equilibrium, which is what we want. For too long, no legitimate substitute has
existed in our two party system, making “leadership” inelastic, limiting
consumer/voter choice and allowing the “sellers” to raise the price instead of
increasing leadership. Believe me, we
are all paying the price. .
Both
movements have an organic feel to them, although like I mentioned before I’m
skeptical of the “Tea Party” but that can be simply because I don’t agree with
their ultra-conservative leanings. The Occupy Wall Streeters feel more like an
organic peoples’ movement, born out of the frustration with the inequities in
the system. I’ve blogged about the
growing income disparity in my “Wake Up America” post and wondered why the
streets didn’t look like the 1960’s.
Well the 60’s are back, ripe with a healthy dose of civil disobedience,
mace and the most important ingredient… young people.
The
movement is young and spreading fast all over the country. It bares a striking
resemblance to protests springing up all over the world in Egypt, Greece,
Spain, led by people that want nothing more than to earn a living and get their
piece of the proverbial pie. This feels
like the sleeping giant has awakened and it’s an exciting time to be
alive.
Why is
this good for the country?
Well if
this movement reaches the tipping point, together with the Tea Party, it will
force our two party system to engage each other and the problems this country
faces. Back to my economic analogy; when
substitutes are introduced to the market place the entire dynamic is affected
because choice is now a factor. If a seller has kept supply low, increasing
demand and inflating the price then the introduction of a substitute will make
that product elastic making it harder to keep prices high because consumers
have a choice. These movements could and
will, with time give rise to parties other than the republican and the
democratic parties. More choice is always a good thing for consumers in a
market especially our market of democracy.
Why it’s not
good for the Republicans.
Although
the Tea Party has galvanized the conservative base it could split a party that
has historically been extremely disciplined, single minded and always on
message. The Occupy Wall Streeters could
further erode support with out of work working class swing voters that usually
punish the incumbent, in this case Obama. If the anger and frustration starts
to coalesce into a coherent message that people can grasp then both parties
will have no choice but to listen and the President is already speaking the same language.
Why it is
good for the Democrats
The Tea
Party with all their homogenous passion and conservatism have a small, closed
tent. They don’t appear to be inclusive, with a desire to go back to a
simpler America but the only problem is in that
America of the past, women, people of color and people with alternative
lifestyles had little or no voice. So guess where those voters will go? That’s
right, to the Democrats, at least until new substantial parties form. At first, I wasn’t sure about the potential effects
of the Occupy Wall Streeters on the Dems. I mean on the surface it appears that
they can only bolster the party as they echo the points of the Democratic
President. But my concern was, like the
Tea Party, they could split support within the party causing some to vote for
more progressive and more liberal candidates with other parties that don't have enough
support to win, effectively fracturing the base. Then I thought about how big
and open the Democratic tent is and I realized it can’t be more fractured than
it already is.
In the
end both movements are the result of dissatisfaction with our party system. If either party wants to survive for another
dozen election cycles they will have to evolve or face certain extinction.
If you would like to get involved and be a part of the movement to remove/reduce financial influence from our political system read the following petition and SIGN IT!
Comments