Photo: Mika HiironniemiI have been struck by the absence of collective protest over the actions of those in the financial industry. Free market advocates have been rendered impotent; why aren’t they up in arms that their belief system has been forever invalidated? Leftists watch as our elected leaders hand over the oversight function to the very companies that caused this mess; why aren’t they taking to the streets?
Talk shows and blog postings reveal plenty of individual anger, but there hasn’t been much collective expression. Why is this? And what forms of protest and outcry would be legitimate?
At the risk of being accused of inciting mass violence, I’d like to know whether people would be justified in using the riot at this particular moment in history. More broadly, under what conditions is the riot a rational (and/or justifiable) response to injustice?
Sociologists love the riot, of course, because it offers an opportunity to test theories regarding mass behavior and individual tolerance for oppressive conditions.
Having observed a few riots, I know that they can also be caused by trivial factors: For example, I watched looters take over streets on the South Side of Chicago after the Bulls won their second consecutive basketball championship — hardly an “oppressive” situation.
But in general, riots are responses to fairly serious issues, like the rising price of commodities, police brutality, assassination of political leaders.
So the federal government is now sending $700 billion of taxpayer money to free market scions who, I remind you, spend millions on collective protest (“lobbying”) against any form of government aid — especially to the middle class, to the poor, and to foreigners.
Scandalous! Taxpayers of the world unite, I say!
Here is my theory as to why the riot has gone the way of the Sony Walkman — an appendage of an earlier era:
1) The iPod:
In public spaces, serendipitous interaction is needed to create the “mob mentality,” which by its nature is not rational or formed through petitions. Most iPod-like devices separate citizens from one another; you can’t join someone in a movement if you can’t hear the voices of its participants. Congrats Mr. Jobs for impeding social change.
2) Prescription drugs:
What is the social function of anxiety reduction if not to increase the capacity of individuals to tolerate their social predicaments? Q.E.D.
3) Debt:
This is a tricky one. In the short term, debt straps individuals into society and makes them fearful of acting out: failing to pay could land them in jail, in bankruptcy, etc. But in the long term, they may feel life has become intolerable and there is little to lose — so, why not tear down the walls? (This kind of thinking, by the way, is partly at the root of our current mess. Those who bought second homes walked away from their investments, accepting bankruptcy, when they realized they were never going to make payments in the long term.)
4) “Hey, things could be worse.”:
Riots require collective recognition that a threshold (of oppressive rule, inequity, etc.) has been surpassed and there’s little hope for improvement. In matters of social oppression, apart from a political assassination, it is rare that mass audiences will agree that such conditions hold. Things have to be downright awful, and we haven’t reached that stage yet. Yet.
5) No enemy in sight:
Rioters usually attack symbols of oppression. For example, in a riot in Chicago in 1992, protesters tore down streetlights, broke lamps, burned school buildings, and otherwise attacked government property. In Los Angeles, in the aftermath of the so-called “Rodney King affair,” non-black stores were attacked.
What might be the target of mobs violently responding to the financial mess? Maybe Midtown Manhattan? How about the Milton Friedman Institute at the University of Chicago?
A general rule is that contemporary rioters do not travel, so they would need to find symbols within their own communities: currency exchanges, banks, the offices of Congressional officials who voted “yes” on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, etc.
It goes without saying that I miss a good old-fashioned riot. But my malaise hardly compares to others who are suffering in these times.
For example, I often pity the poor souls who took out property insurance with A.I.G. and other insurers. In the event of a riot, they might be next in line for a government bailout. Will there be anything left in the $700 billion for them?
and 
. You can also watch it on 
*Free market advocates have been rendered impotent; why aren’t they up in arms that their belief system has been forever invalidated?*
ummm – because it wasn’t, maybe? the financial `house of cards’ began to collapse because of the sub-prime loans? the reason behind this? largely mandated lending legislated by the u.s. Congress.
No `free market’ there
and, supposing that the `free market’ (as though that exists anywhere) was responsible for the financial crisis. Does this mean that it is `forever’ invalidated? I mean, for all time? Hardly a measured analysis, I think.
“he reason behind this? largely mandated lending legislated by the u.s. Congress.”
That’s a convenient talking point. Too bad it’s wrong. Predatory lending wasn’t mandated by Congress. The Credit Default Swap Ponzi scheme wasn’t either; but it was made possible, on the contrary, by deregulation.
And the deranged libertarians will as always claim that only absolute deregulation would work. Right. Reminds me of zealous communists of yesteryear, who managed to blind themselves to the horrors of stalinism for decades.
learned helplessness
I think it’s very simple. People haven’t FELT the 700 billion leave their bank accounts yet. Nader said jail the crooks, fine the thieving companies, and regulate the whole mess so this can never happen again. I believe there will be a surge in support for Nader because of this BAILOUT to line the pockets of the richest 1%. The fact is that the bailout was a blank check to the Bush Administration by the Democrats who control congress. And they did it without a single public hearing. And they didn’t take up Nader’s proposal of a one tenth of one percent transaction tax on Wall Street which will raise 500 billion per year to pay for the bailouts. FDR had this tax, we pay sales tax, why don’t the richest 1% on Wall Street pay their fair share when they buy a billion dollars worth of commodities or securities, etc? There is going to be a taxpayer revolt. But it will not really get ugly until people fully realize what’s happening. The banks we infused with cash are NOT loaning it. The companies we saved are paying themselves huge dividends which will make it impossible for us to ever recoup our money. And still no one has helped the home owners in trouble. And still there is no regulation of Wall Street. And still no one has been indicted. In the Enron debacle, jail. In the SNL crisis, jail. Where are the indictments?
1. Awesome post, well thought out.
2. Gooch is correct. If Obama loses all hell will break loose.
Later,
Jim
I have to strongly echo Ezzie at post#8 and all those who find the preamble to the question as flawed.
The premise of this question is wholly flawed. This is more a vidication of free markets, because in no way could one honestly say that this was a free market that imploded.
Be that as it may, though, the superficial question is why no riots? (Even if the basis for the riot is wrong or wrongly understood).
The financial mess is too far removed from most people, especially those that would be more tempermentally inclined to riot. Now, if you start wholesale evictions … maybe things would change.
It’s also hard to identify exactly who the “bad guys” are here, but for a handful of white-collar types and politicians that live too far away from most of us. I’d be happy just to see them stripped of the money they “earned” over the last decade.
Modern politics has rendered protesting useless. You won’t see 70′s style mass gatherings these days. Either you’re herded into a “Free Speech Zone” and swept under the rug, or you’re gonna get brutalized by “Less than Lethal” police tactics. Neither are productive to the cause.
People no longer riot, because people no longer riot. In other words, no one sees riots, no one even sees protests anymore.
Protests and riots have become effectively marginalized partially through, I think, the 24-hour news cycle and the acquiescence of media outlets to government desires. No matter how big a protest or riot is, there might be a shark attack somewhere, or a missing girl, or someone ramming a car into convenience store.
The news as “Ripley’s Believe It or Not!” seems to be a paradigm the most popular media outlets are unwilling to break.
Also, consider the portrait of protesters or rioters in the U.S. — confined to “free speech zones,” or individuals seemingly more interested in the theatre of protesting, ala “Code Pink.”