Written by Michael Potash   

In Glenn Greenwald’s new book “With Liberty and Justice for Some”, he makes the case that the pardoning of Richard Nixon brought about a two-tiered system of injustice that continues to this day. I now argue that the Occupy Wall Street movement is a direct result of that system of injustice as well as the decay of American democracy. Further; sending the protestors home will require addressing both issues.

The pardoning of Richard Nixon in 1974 proved to be an archetypal maneuver, launching the two-tiered justice system now being protested by the Occupy Wall Street movement. Gerald Ford, the only U.S. president never elected to the office told the country that the pardon was necessary to put the national scandal behind us. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Ford’s press secretary, Jerald Terhorst, a man of conscience, resigned over the matter. Nixon, who had run on a platform of law and order, lied to the FBI and congress, destroyed evidence, took part in if not directly ordered the Watergate break-in, obstructed justice and committed other felonies as well. Had he been put on trial, prosecuted, and appropriately sentenced, Ford would have been correct when he said: "My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over." The nightmare continues.
There’s plenty of reputable scholarship indicating that Ford was appointed specifically to pardon Nixon. America saw the pardon in stark contrast to the prosecutions of those who evaded the Vietnam War draft. The law would be harshly applied to the poor and the powerless. The wealthy and well-connected were apparently entitled to violate the law with impunity. In Nixon’s own words: “If the president does it; that makes it legal”. If only we all saw it that way. What could have remained a dark singularity in American history instead became the modus operandi for powerful individuals and corporations to get away with…just about anything.
Those who either don’t get or strictly oppose the Occupy movement challenge that the protestors are Socialist failures who merely want to redistribute the wealth of the meritorious. Nothing could be further from the truth. Americans have always admired a success story. As a culture, we have always praised those who, through honest hard work and smarts, achieve financial success. What we detest are cheaters who walk away with the prize. What we detest even more is a fundamentally rigged game – one in which the cheaters win by owning the judges. And most repugnant; in this case, a theft predicated on the destruction of millions of individuals and families in America’s Middle Class. That’s not Capitalism, that’s just evil.
Several mass media pundits allege that the protesters are instigating class warfare. Participating in – definitely. Instigating – certainly not. Having class distinctions was a value held by the founding fathers of our country. As examples, James Madison said: "Our government ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." John Jay said: “The people who own the government ought to govern it." Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, said: "The natural aristocracy is the most precious gift of nature for the government of society." And John Adams put it this way: "It already appears that there must be in every society of men, superiors and inferiors, because God has laid in the… course of nature, the foundation of the distinction." In light of such quotes; who exactly is instigating the class warfare? Clearly, those at the pinnacle of society feel that they are entitled to be the masters over the majority. Those in the majority will predictably challenge that system when their pain and sense of injustice becomes overbearing as it has now.
Ending the protests does not concern satisfying a list of demands – particularly since there is none. The secret to sending the 99 Percenters home is addressing their grievances – at least to a level recognized by the protestors as ‘sufficient’. There are two general issues at hand. The first is that of stark injustice. It’s not enough for the Wall Street banks to profit handsomely from the obscene advantages they have within the law (many of which they actually wrote). The U.S. economy was devastated as a result of myriad legal violations. Yet, no one has been held responsible. Conspiracy, insider trading, fraud, collusion, destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice, and who knows what else, wiped out trillions of dollars of the world economy. Had the guilty been tried but acquitted, that would have been bad enough. But it’s much worse. No one has been acquitted because no one has been tried. No one has been tried because no one has been indicted. Nobody indicted, and nobody arrested. Even more infuriating; the prime candidates for imprisonment paid themselves huge bonuses using the TARP funds - declared necessary to ameliorate the results of their own criminality. Most Americans want to see the ‘perp walk’. They want to see police on TV escorting the top tier of AIG, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley into police vans. They want to see the elected officials who colluded with them impeached, removed from office, and jailed if found guilty of criminal activity. That alone could diffuse the Occupy movement.
But there’s something else to consider – the second issue. The middle class is getting mercilessly ripped off - legally. As an example: The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act granted the investment banks the right to, as F.D.R. put it, “gamble with other people’s money”. In the heads I win - tails you lose casino of Wall Street, the largest losing bets are guaranteed by American taxpayers whether they like it or not. As another example: Free trade agreements, explained as being a natural phenomenon (much like the seasons and the tides), not only have actually reduced trade, but have granted multinational corporations license to replace American workers with Chinese prison labor. Proponents of so-called ‘free-trade’ have defended the pain inflicted upon the domestic workforce as an example of ‘tough love’. Apparently, that means love for the multinationals, tough for everyone else. This is not an expression of a natural phenomenon, but of our moribund democracy.
The costs of conducting a political campaign are extreme. The 2012 election has a projected cost of $2 billion. Much of that will come from ‘special interests’ with long strings attached. In the end, 'We, the People' get to vote for which candidate will represent their corporate benefactors interests over our own. This can be demonstrated empirically. The American public has articulated, in every opinion survey, in large majorities that the way they want to close the deficit is to increase taxes on the wealthiest in our society, cut military spending, have a public option for healthcare, and cut the excess profits in the insurance industry. Yet, none of this matters because ‘We, the People’ are irrelevant to those elected to represent us. As a result, a growing number who are young enough, strong enough, and angry enough have decided to occupy Zuccotti Park and other locations across the country in protest. They’ve decided that “they’re mad as Hell and they’re not going to take it anymore”.
The nascent Occupy movement will face many challenges in the coming months. Brutal overreaction by various police forces has already occurred on several occasions. The protestors accept this is as a price they will have to pay if they hope to succeed. (There is much historical precedence for this). Winter will multiply the difficulties. Keeping up their morale will be critical to success, but the great deal of support coming from here and around the world will no doubt help to spur them on. It would be unrealistic for the protestors to expect something resembling a ‘total victory’. Perhaps it ends when an acceptable equilibrium has been reached between the protestor’s desired goals and the effort required to push for further reform. At any rate, we’ll all have to wait and see what develops. Already, the movement has shaped the political debates in Washington and is poised to influence the 2012 election. The 99 Percenters may draw some strength from the words of Mohandas Gandhi:
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

If Gandhi is right and the protesters can hang in, 99% of us may someday thank them for saving us from the onerous and growing inequality flaying America’s middle class. I suspect the remaining 1% will not.