Uprising

"Rise up and take the power back!
It's time the fat cats had a heart attack.
You know that their time is coming to an end.
We have to unify and watch our flag ascend."

About a year ago (on a Friday), the governor of Wisconsin introduced a Budget Repair Bill that "proposed taking away the ability of public sector unions to bargain collectively over pensions and health care and limiting pay raises of public employees to the rate of inflation, as well as ending automatic union dues collection by the state and requiring public unions to recertify annually."(q) By Monday (Valentine's Day) the people of Wisconsin were already making their voices heard. The protests grew in the days and weeks that followed as the governor (and his supporters) refused to back down from the controversial position that such a move was necessary. So 'necessary' in fact, that it had to be passed with a protocol-bending slight-of-hand that catapulted even the most reticent among us out of our respective reveries.

'Necessity' (or the great lack thereof) aside, what sparked outrage and indignation was the way in which people felt they were being treated by their 'representative' government. Media critic John Nichols has written a new book chronicling the protests in Wisconsin that marked the year 2011. Uprising: How Wisconsin Renewed the Politics of Protest, from Madison to Wall Street is a considered attempt to discuss "how one uprising inspires the next" and "what an uprising and its aftermath may mean for labor, for popular organizing, for media reform, for politics, for democracy." Nichols is not afraid to say that "crooked politicians [were] conniving to take away the essential rights of working people," and to liken the subsequent attempts to remake relevant legislative processes to "Orwellian fantasy" and "way stations on a road map to ruin." Prescient words from Nichols, as new information comes to light just days before his book is officially released. Republican lawmakers in Wisconsin "took the unusual step of signing a legal agreement in which they promised to not comment publicly about redistricting discussions while new GOP-friendly maps were being drafted." (q) Not comment publicly?? As in not answer to the public that elected you and for whom you are supposed to work?!? Cue the outrage and indignation...

So much has been already said about the influence of corporations on government. But corporations are built on the backs of workers - workers who are often degraded in a dozen small and not-so-small ways. Those workers are us. The future of this country isn't going to be shaped by our science or our religion; it will be shaped by what we as workers are willing to endure for the illusion of economic security. And in a day where corporate promises are so easily broken, unemployment is so easily attainable, and the average American is so easily bankrupted by unforeseen circumstances, illusion it is, for 99% of us at least.

Nichols fills his book with inspiring quotes, such as this... "The question will arise and arise in your day, though perhaps not fully in mine: Which shall rule, wealth or man? Which shall lead, money or intellect? Who shall fill public stations, educated and patriotic freemen, or the feudal serfs of corporate capital?" And yet it seems as if Nichols is content to decry the current state of affairs and suggest the political changes that others might implement. He does not convincingly assume the mantle so often heard by the protesters - an injury to one is an injury to all. But then... who among us really does?

What Nichols fails to identify in his otherwise well-written book: Political action, though necessary, will not be sufficient. We cannot legislate others into caring about the burdens of their neighbors anymore than we can legislate them into acting in accordance with any other aspect of our own values. Attempting to do so only provokes the inevitable rebellion.

But we can attempt to make others see the reality of 'an injury to one is an injury to all'. And that reality is this... If there are any workers who can be denied benefits, a living wage, or a reasonable schedule, then those conditions can (and will) easily become a reality for everyone, because everyone is easily replaced with someone who is willing to put up with just a little bit more for the same (or less) compensation. That will always be the case in a society where workers outnumber jobs, and the conditions for workers grow worse as the number of potential replacements increases relative to the number of jobs. Those who are desperate for work may not be able to see past their own immediate emergencies, but those who are relatively secure in their employment bear the responsibility of seeing that that security does not come at the expense of others. It's not an easy responsibility to bear; we are not biologically or psychologically wired for self-sacrifice. We have no cultural imperative to work for the collective good. But perhaps, when enough of us have suffered, we will rise up and make the cultural changes that are necessary for lasting, non-illusory security.